(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "North Carolina courts : annual report of the Administrative Office of the Courts"

£ Z 

Norttf Carolina Courts 

1981-32 




Annual Report 

o! tt?e 

Afcmintstratiue (Office of ttyt Cterta 



The Cover: I he Stokes County Courthouse, in Danbury, North Carolina, designed in 
the Beaux Arts Nco-Classical Revival style, comparable to that of five other county 
courthouses erected in the State at the turn of the century, was constructed in 1904. An 
unusual oblong mansard cupola is set directly behind the portico, with two-story Hat 
roof wings projecting from the sides. Harmonious one-story wings and a two-story 
rear addition were added in 1940. 



NORTH CAROLINA COURTS 



1981-82 




ANNUAL REPORT 



of the 



ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 




ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

JUSTICE BUILDING 
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 



The Honorable Joseph Branch, Chief Justice 
The Supreme Court of North Carolina 
Raleigh, North Carolina 

Dear Mr. Chief Justice: 

Inaccord with Section 7A-343 of the North Carolina General Statutes, I herewith transmit the Sixteenth 
Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year, July 1 , 198 1 
-June 30, 1982. 

Appreciation is expressed to the many persons who participated in the data reporting, compilation, and 
writing required to produce this annual report. Within the Administrative Office of the Courts, principal 
responsibilities were shared by the Research and Planning Division and the Information Services Division. 
The principal burden of reporting the great mass of trial court data rested upon the offices of the clerks of 
superior court located in each of the one hundred counties of the State. The Clerk of the Supreme Court 
and the Clerk of the Court of Appeals provided the case data relating to our appellate courts. 

Without the responsible work of many persons across the State this report would not have been possible. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Franklin E. Freeman, Jr. 
Director 

December, 1982 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Part I 
The 1981-82 Judicial Year in Review 

The 1981-82 Judicial Year in Review 



Part II 

Court System Organization and Operations 

Historical Development of the North Carolina Court System 5 

The Present Court System 8 

Organization and Operations in 1980-81 

The Supreme Court 12 

The Court of Appeals 21 

The Superior Courts 29 

The District Courts 32 

District Attorneys 35 

Clerks of Superior Court 38 

Public Defenders 40 

The N.C. Courts Commission 41 

The Judicial Standards Commission 43 

Part III 
Court Resources 

Judicial Department Finances 

Appropriations 47 

Expenditures 50 

Receipts 52 

Distribution of Receipts 53 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 56 

Judicial Department Personnel 63 

Part IV 

Trial Courts Caseflow Data 

Trial Courts Case Data 67 

Superior Court Division Caseflow Data 71 

District Court Division Caseflow Data 115 



Tables, Charts and Graphs 

Part II 
Court System Organization and Operations 

Original Jurisdictions and Routes o\ Appeal in the 

Present Court System 8 

Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina 

Trial Courts II 

1 he Supreme Court of North Carolina 12 

Supreme Court. Caseload Inventory 14 

Supreme Court. Submission of Cases to Decision Stage 15 

Supreme Court. Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings 15 

Supreme Court. Disposition of Appeals 16 

Supreme Court. Manner of Disposition of Appeals 17 

Supreme Court, Type ol Disposition of Petitions 17 

Supreme Court. Pending Cases 18 

Supreme Court. Appeals Docketed and Disposed of, 

I 978-79 198 1 -82 19 

Supreme Court. Petitions Docketed and Allowed, 

1 97N-~9 198 1 -82 20 

1 he Court ol Appeals of North Carolina 21 

Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions 23 

Court oi Appeals. Inventory of Cases Appealed 24 

Court oi Appeals. Manner of Disposition of Cases 25 

Court ol Appeals. Inventory of Motions and Petitions 26 

Court of Appeals, filings and Dispositions, 1977 1981-82 27 

Map ol Judicial Divisions and Districts 28 

Judges ol Superior Court 29 

District ( out t Judges 32 

District Attorneys 35 

Clerks oi Superior Court 38 

Public I )efenders .40 

The NO (Hurts Commission 41 

I he Judicial Standards Commission 43 

Part III 

Court Resources 

General 1 unci Appropriations, All State Agencies 

and Judicial Department 47 

Genera! Fund Appropriations. All State Agencies 

and Judicial Department 48 

General I und Appropriations for Operating Expenses oi All 

State Agencies and Judicial Department 49 

General I und Expenditures for Judicial Department Operations 50 

Judicial Department Receipts 52 

ibution oi Judicial Department Receipts 53 

ints oi I ees. Fines, and Forfeitures Collected by the 
its and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 54 



Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 56 

Mental Hospital Commitment Hearings 58 

Assigned Counsel, Cases and Expenditures 59 

Judicial Department Personnel 63 

Part IV 

Trial Courts Caseflow Data 

Superior Courts, Caseload , 72 

Superior Courts, Caseload Trends .... ....... 73 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases Trends 74 

Superior Courts, Median Ages of Cases 75 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases Inventory 76 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Methods of Disposition 80 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition 81 

Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases 85 

Superior Courts, Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings 90 

Superior Courts, Inventory of Estates and Special Proceedings 91 

Superior Courts, Trends in Criminal Cases 95 

Superior Courts, Inventory of Criminal Cases 96 

Superior Courts, Methods of Disposition of Criminal Cases 100 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Criminal Cases 101 

Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases 105 

District Courts, Filings and Dispositions 116 

District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of All Cases I 17 

District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Civil Cases I 18 

District Courts, General Civil and Domestic Relations Cases 1 f9 

District Courts, Civil Caseload Inventory 1 20 

District Courts, Methods of Disposition of Civil Cases 1 24 

District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases 125 

District Courts, Ages of Civil Cases 1 29 

District Courts, Civil Magistrate Filings and Dispositions 1 34 

District Courts, Offenses and Conditions in Juvenile Petitions 1 36 

District Courts, Adjudicatory Hearings, Juvenile Petitions ... 140 

District Courts, Trends of Criminal Cases 145 

District Courts, Motor Vehicle Criminal Case Filings and Dispositions 146 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Caseload Inventory 1 50 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Methods of Disposition ................... 1 54 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition 155 

District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases 159 

Rankings of Judicial Districts In Terms Of Total Caseload Disposed Of, 

Superior Court and District Court Cases 1 64 

Rankings of Counties In Terms Of Total Caseload Disposed Of, 

Superior and District Court Cases . 165 



HI 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2012 with funding from 

LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation 



http://archive.org/details/northcarolinacou1982nort 



PARTI 



THE 1981-1982 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



THE 1981-82 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



This Annual Report on the work of North Carolina's 
Judicial Department is for the fiscal year which began 
July 1, 1981 and ended June 30, 1982." 

The Workload of the Courts 

During 1981-82 the workload of the appellate courts 
increased over that reported the previous year. As set out 
in more detail in Part II of this Report, case filings in the 
Supreme Court totalled 241, compared with 228 filed 
during 1980-81. A total of 681 petitions were filed in the 
Supreme Court, compared with 612 in 1980-81; and 75 
petitions were allowed compared with 73 in 1980-81. 

For the Court of Appeals, case data is reported on a 
fiscal year rather than calendar year basis as in prior 
Annual Reports. For 1981-82, case filings were 1,413 
compared with 1,222 for the 1 980 calendar year. Petitions 
in 1981-82 totalled 581, compared with 508 during 
calendar year, 1980. 

More detailed data on the appellate courts is included 
in Part II of this Annual Report. 

In the superior courts, case filings (civil and criminal) 
increased by 2.6%, to a total of 84,571 in 1981-82, com- 
pared with 82,441 cases in 1980-81. Superior court case 
dispositions also increased to a total of 82,165, compared 
with 80,303 in 1980-81. As case filings during the year 
exceeded case dispositions, the total number of cases 
pending at the end of the year increased by 2,04 1 , or 6%. 
Operations of the superior courts are summarized in Part 
II of this Report, and detailed information on the case- 
loads in the 100 counties and 34 judicial districts is pre- 
sented in Part IV. 

Not including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital 
commitment hearings, the statewide total of district court 
filings (civil and criminal) during 1981-82 was 1,42 1, 309, a 
decrease of 99,517 cases (6.5%) from 1980-81 filings of 
1,520,826 cases. The only area of the district court case- 
load to register an increase in 1981-82 over the previous 
fiscal year was the non-motor vehicle criminal case cate- 
gory, which had total filings of 418,176 cases in 1981-82, 
an increase of 3.8% over the 402,900 cases filed in 1980-8 1 . 
There was a 5.4%, drop in civil case filings from a total of 
344,483 in 1980-81 to 325,886 in 1981-82. Most of this 
decrease was in civil magistrate filings, from 226,604 cases 
in 1980-81 to 21 5,625 cases in 1981-82. There was also a 
decrease of 6,740 cases in the domestic relations category, 
attributable to a change in reporting where subsequent 
motions and petitions in a domestic relations case, follow- 
ing initial disposition, were no longer reported. 

Motor vehicle criminal case filings accounted for the 
largest portion of the caseload reduction in 1981-82, a 
reduction of 96, 196 cases ( 15.5%) from the 773,443 filings 
reported in 1980-81. This may have been due in part to a 
change in State Highway Patrol activity. In 1981-82, the 
Patrol shifted coverage emphasis more to secondary 
roads, where traffic volume is lower but accident inci- 
dence is higher. In addition, the Patrol had less overtime 



funded in 1981-82, with less opportunity to apprehend 
traffic offenders. 

This marks the fourth year in a row that total tilings ol 
traffic cases have been lower than the previous years. In 
previous years, it has been speculated that these reduc- 
tions were related to such factors as changes in driving 
habits, gasoline prices, and increases in liability insurance 
premiums. It is possible that these factors are still having 
an effect. 

1982 Legislative Highlights 
Constitutional Amendments 

In June 1982, North Carolina voters approved two 
amendments to the judiciary article of the State Con- 
stitution. 

One amendment (Article IV, Section 8) allows the 
recall of retired justices or judges of the appellate division 
for temporary service on either of the two courts within 
that division. Prior to this amendment, a retired justice or 
judge could be recalled for temporary service only to that 
court from which he or she retired. This amendment 
becomes effective on January I, 1983. 

The other amendment (Article IV, Section 1 2( 1 )), also 
effective January I, 1983, authorizes the General Assem- 
bly to provide for appeals from the Utilities Commission 
directly to the Supreme Court. Presently, appeals from 
the Utilities Commission go to the Court of Appeals, 
from which an appeal may then be taken to the Supreme 
Court. 

"Proper Court" for Trial of Civil Cases 

At the extra legislative session in June 1982, the Gen- 
eral Assembly raised the amount in controversy that 
designates the proper court division for trial of civil 
actions. Prior to July 1, 1982, the district court was the 
proper court for those civil actions where the amount in 
controversy was $5,000 or less, and the superior court was 
the proper court for civil actions in which the amount in 
controversy exceeded $5,000. Effective July I, 1982, the 
district court is the proper court for the trial of civil cases 
where the amount in controversy is $ 10,000, or less (G.S. 
7A-243). 

Annual Jury Lists 

A 1982 legislative amendment to G.S. 9-2, which was 
sponsored by the North Carolina Courts Commission, 
allows the preparation of jury lists annually, as well as on 
a biennial basis. The change from biennial to annual lists 
is implemented by the request of the senior resident senior 
court judge to the county jury commission. This change 
will benefit those counties using one-day or one-trail jury 
service where access to more up-to-date address informa- 
tion is essential to the operation of such systems. 



THE 1981-82 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



Termination of Parental Rights Cases 

ti\e in Juno 1982. the statutes governing termina- 

parental rights were changed to require the sched- 

.: six-month review hearing by the district court 

c w ho entered the termination order. It is the purpose 

s review to ensure that every reasonable effort is 

de to pro\ idea permanent placement plan which 

he best interest of the child (G.S. 7A-289.3 l(cl )). 



in June l l )82. an applicant who is denied such a permit 
may appeal this decision to the chief district court judge of 
the district where the application was filed. The decision 
of the district court in the appeal of such matters is final. 
I he General Assembly also established a hearing 
procedure before the magistrate for motorists whose ve- 
hicles are either towed or stored pursuant to G.S. Chapter 
20. G.S. 115C-46(d), G.S. 1 16-44.4, or G.S. 143-340(19). 
This procedure became effective on August I, 1982. 



Expansion of Public Defender System 

In the extra session ol 1 L )S2 the General Assembly 

ased the State's public defender system from six to 

n judicial districts. Effective June I. 1983, a public 

nder office is to be established in District 15B, which 

des Orange and Chatham Counties. The new public 

nder w ill be appointed by the Governor from a list of 

nominees submitted by members of the district bar, to 

serve a four-year term (G.S. 7A-466). 

Other Legislative Action 

In legislative changes to the procedure governing the 
issuance ol pistol permits (G.S. 14-404), which were made 



Appropriations for Judicial Department 

The General Assembly at the 1981 Regular Session 
approved a 1981-83 biennial appropriation for the Judi- 
cial Department and for other State departments, agen- 
cies and institutions. At the extra legislative session in 
June 1982, revisions were made in the appropriations for 
the 1982-83 fiscal year. For the Judicial Department, 
there was a 3.5% decrease in the original appropriation 
for 1982-83, from $90,321,624 to $87,147,849. Similar 
reductions in the 1982-83 appropriations were made for 
various other State departments and agencies. 



PART II 



COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION 
AND OPERATIONS 

• Historical Development of Court System 

• Present Court System 

• Organization and Operations in 1981-82 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 



From its early colonial period North Carolina's judi- 
cial system has been the focus of periodic attention and 
adjustment. Through the years, there has been a repeat- 
ed sequence of critical examination, proposals for re- 
form, and finally the enactment of some reform 
measures. 

Colonial Period 

Around 1700 the royal governor established a Gener- 
al (or Supreme) Court for the colony and a dispute 
developed over the appointment of associate justices. 
The Assembly conceded to the King the right to name 
the chief justice but unsuccessfully tried to win for itself 
the power to appoint the associate justices. Other con- 
troversies developed concerning the creation and juris- 
diction of the courts and the tenure of judges. As for 
the latter, the Assembly's position was that judge ap- 
pointments should be for good behavior as against the 
royal governor's decision for life appointment. State 
historians have noted that "the Assembly won its fight 
to establish courts and the judicial structure in the 
province was grounded on laws enacted by the legisla- 
ture", which was more familiar with local conditions 
and needs (Lefler and Newsome, 142). Nevertheless, 
North Carolina alternated between periods under legis- 
latively enacted reforms (like good behavior tenure and 
the Court Bill of 1746, which contained the seeds of the 
post-Revolutionary court system) and periods of stale- 
mate and anarchy after such enactments were nullified 
by royal authority. A more elaborate system was 
framed by legislation in 1767 to last five years. It was 
not renewed because of persisting disagreement be- 
tween local and royal partisans. As a result. North 
Carolina was without higher courts until after Indepen- 
dence (Battle, 847). 

At the lower court level during the colonial period, 
judicial and county government administrative func- 
tions were combined in the authority of the justices of 
the peace, who were appointed by the royal governor. 

After the Revolution 

When North Carolina became a state in 1776, the 
colonial structure of the court system was retained 
largely intact. The Courts of Pleas and Quarter Ses- 
sions — the county court which continued in use from 
about 1670 to 1868 — were still held by the assembled 
justices of the peace in each county. The justices were 
appointed by the governor on the recommendation of 
the General Assembly, and they were paid out of fees 
charged litigants. On the lowest level of the judicial sys- 
tem, magistrate courts of limited jurisdiction were held 
by justices of the peace, singly or in pairs, while the 
county court was out of term. 

The new Constitution of 1776 empowered the Gener- 
al Assembly to appoint judges of the Supreme Court of 



Law and Equity. A court law enacted a year later au- 
thorized three superior court judges and created judi- 
cial districts. Sessions were supposed to be held in the 
court towns of each district twice a year, under a sys- 
tem much like the one that had expired in 1772. Just as 
there had been little distinction in terminology between 
General Court and Supreme Court prior to the Revolu- 
tion, the terms Supreme Court and Superior Court 
were also interchangeable during the period immediate- 
ly following the Revolution. 

One of the most vexing governmental problems con- 
fronting the new State of North Carolina was its judi- 
ciary. "From its inception in 1777 the state's judiciary 
caused complaint and demands for reform." (Lefler 
and Newsome, 291, 292). Infrequency of sessions, con- 
flicting judge opinions, and insufficient number of 
judges, and lack of means for appeal were all cited as 
problems, although the greatest weakness was consid- 
ered to be the lack of a real Supreme Court. 

In 1779, the legislature required the Superior Court 
judges to meet together in Raleigh as a Court or Con- 
ference to resolve cases which were disagreed on in the 
districts. This court was continued and made perma- 
nent by subsequent laws. The justices were required to 
put their opinions in writing to be delivered orally in 
court. The Court of Conference was changed in name 
to the Supreme Court in 1805 and authorized to hear 
appeals in 1810. Because of the influence of the English 
legal system, however, there was still no conception of 
an alternative to judges sitting together to hear appeals 
from cases which they had themselves heard in the dis- 
tricts in panels of as few as two judges (Battle, 848). In 
1818, though, an independent three-judge Supreme 
Court was created for review of cases decided at the 
Superior Court level. 

Meanwhile, semi-annual superior court sessions in 
each county were made mandatory in 1806, and the 
State was divided into six circuits, or ridings, where the 
six judges were to sit in rotation, two judges constitut- 
ing a quorum as before. 

The County court of justices of the peace continued 
during this period as the lowest court and as the agency 
of local government. 

After the Civil War 

Major changes to modernize the judiciary and make 
it more democratic were made in 1868. A primary 
holdover from the English legal arrangement - the 
distinction between law and equity proceedings — was 
abolished. The County Court's control of local govern- 
ment was abolished. Capital offenses were limited to 
murder, arson, burglary and rape, and the Constitution 
stated that the aim of punishment was "not only to sat- 
isfy justice, but also to reform the offender, and thus 
prevent crime". The membership of the Supreme Court 
was raised to five, and the selection of the justices (in- 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT 01 THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 



ng the designation of the chief justice) and super- 
court judges (raised in number to 12) was taken 
from the legislature and given to the voters, although 
vacancies were to he filled by the governor until the 
next election. The Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions 
the Count\ Court of which three justices of the 
peace constituted a quorum - was eliminated. Its judi- 
cial responsibilities were divided between the Superior 
Courts and the individual justices of the peace, who 
were retained as separate judicial officers with limited 
jurisdiction. 

Conservatively oriented amendments to the 1868 
Constitution in 1875 reduced the number of Supreme 
Court justices to three and the Superior Court judges 
to nine. The General Assembly was given the power to 
appoint justices of the peace, instead of the governor. 
Most of the modernizing changes in the post-Civil War 
Constitution, however, were left, and the judicial struc- 
ture it had established continued without systematic 
modification through more than half of the 20th cen- 
tury. (A further constitutional amendment approved by 
the voters in November, 1888, returned the Supreme 
Court membership to five, and the number of superior 
court judges to twelve.) 

Before Reorganization 

A multitude of legislative enactments to meet rising 
demands and to respond to changing needs had heavily 
encumbered the 1868 judicial structure by the time 
systematic court reforms were proposed in the 1950's. 
This accrual of piecemeal change and addition to the 
court system was most evident at the lower, local court 
level, where hundreds of courts specially created by 
statute operated with widely dissimilar structure and 
jurisdiction. 

B\ 1965, when the implementation of the most recent 
major reforms was begun, the court system in North 
( arolina consisted of four levels: (a) the Supreme 
rt, with appellate jurisdiction; (b) the superior 
court, with general trial jurisdiction; (c) the local statu- 
tory courts of limited jurisdiction, and (d) justices of 
the peace and mayor's courts, with petty jurisdiction. 

At the superior court level, the State had been divid- 
ed into 30 judicial districts and 24 solicitorial districts. 
The 40 superior court judges (who rotated among the 
counties) and the district solicitors were paid by the 
State. The clerk of superior court, who was judge of 
probate and often also a juvenile judge, was a county 
official. There were specialized branches of superior 
court in some counties for matters like domestic rela- 
and juvenile offenses. 

The lower two levels were local courts. At the higher 
of these local court levels were more than 180 recorder- 
type courts. Among these were the county recorder's 
rts, municipal recorder's courts and township re- 
er's courts: the general county courts, county crim- 



inal courts and special county courts; the domestic 
relations courts and the juvenile courts. Some of these 
had been established individually by special legislative 
acts more than a half-century earlier. Others had been 
created by general law across the State since 1919. 
About half were county courts and half were city or 
township courts. Jurisdiction included misdemeanors 
(mostly traffic offenses), preliminary hearings and 
sometimes civil matters. The judges, who were usually 
part-time, were variously elected or appointed locally. 
At the lowest level were about 90 mayor's courts and 
some 925 justices of the peace. These officers had simi- 
lar criminal jurisdiction over minor cases with penalties 
up to a $50 fine or 30 days in jail. The justices of the 
peace also had civil jurisdiction of minor cases. These 
court officials were compensated by the fees they exact- 
ed, and they provided their own facilities. 



Court Reorganization 

The need for a comprehensive evaluation and revi- 
sion of the court system received the attention and sup- 
port of Governor Luther H. Hodges in 1957, who 
encouraged the leadership of the North Carolina Bar 
Association to pursue the matter. A Court Study Com- 
mittee was established as an agency of the North Caro- 
lina Bar Association, and that Committee issued its 
report, calling for reorganization, at the end of 1958. A 
legislative Constitutional Commission, which worked 
with the Court Study Committee, finished its report 
early the next year. Both groups called for the structur- 
ing of an all-inclusive court system which would be 
directly state-operated, uniform in its organization 
throughout the State and centralized in its administra- 
tion. The plan was for a simplified, streamlined and 
unified structure. A particularly important part of the 
proposal was the elimination of the local statutory 
courts and their replacement by a single District Court; 
the office of justice of the peace was to be abolished, 
and the newly fashioned position of magistrate would 
function within the District Court as a subordinate ju- 
dicial office. 

Constitutional amendments were introduced in the 
legislature in 1959 but these failed to gain the required 
three-fifths vote of each house. The proposals were 
reintroduced and approved at the 1961 session. The 
Constitutional amendments were approved by popular 
vote in 1962, and three years later the General Assem- 
bly enacted statutes to put the system into effect by 
stages. By the end of 1970 all of the counties and their 
courts had been incorporated into the new system, 
whose unitary nature was symbolized by the name, 
General Court of Justice. The designation of the entire 
20th Century judicial system as a single, statewide 
"court," with components for various types and levels 
of caseload, was adapted from North Carolina's earlier 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 



General Court, whose full venue extended to all of the 
17th Century counties. 

After Reorganization 

Notwithstanding the comprehensive reorganization 
adopted in 1962, the impetus for changes has contin- 
ued. In 1965, the Constitution was amended to provide 
for the creation of an intermediate Court of Appeals. It 
was amended again in 1972 to allow for the Supreme 
Court to censure or remove judges upon the recom- 



mendation of a Judicial Standards Commission. As for 
the selection of judges, persistent efforts have been 
made in the 1970's to obtain legislative approval of 
amendments to the State Constitution, to appoint 
judges according to "merit" instead of electing them by 
popular, partisan vote. The proposed amendments 
have received the backing of a majority of the members 
of each house, but not the three-fifths required to sub- 
mit constitutional amendments to a vote of the people. 
It seems likely that this significant issue will be before 
the General Assembly again for consideration. 



Major Sources 

Battle, Kemp. P. An Address on the History oj the Supreme Court (Delivered in 1 888). I North Carolina Reports X35-876. 

Hinsdale, C.E. County Government in North Carolina. 1965 Edition. 

Lefler, Hugh Talmage and Albert Ray Newsome. North Carolina: The History oj a Southern State. 1963 Edition. 

Sanders, John L. Constitutional Revision and Court Reform: A Legislative History. 1959 Special Report ol" the N.C. Institute of Government 

Stevenson, George and Ruby D. Arnold. North Carolina Courts of Law and Equity Prior to IS68. N.C. Archives Information Circular l c )73. 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 

Original Jurisdiction and Routes of Appeal 



, , 

Recommendations 
from Judicial 



l Standards Commission' 
L —J 



.', Jurisdiction 

on\ cases civil 

cases in excess oi SI ().()()()* 



, . , 

Decisions of j 
i most administrative j 
i agencies i 

l . l 





COURT OF 

APPEALS 
12 Judges 



SUPERIOR COURTS 

6H Judges 



Original Jurisdiction 
and estates, 
il proceedings 

tions, adoptions, | 
ireclosures. 



Lnminal cases 
(lor trial de novo) 



DISTRICT 
COURTS 
142 Judges 




Magistrates 

(609) 



i 



Decisions of Utilities 
Commission, Industrial 
Commission, State Bar, 



1 



. Property Tax Commission, j 
Commissioner of Insurance ■ 



Original Jurisdiction 
Misdemeanor cases not assigned 
to magistrates; probable cause 
hearings; civil cases $10,000* 
or less; juvenile proceedings; 
domestic relations; 
involuntary commitments 



Original Jurisdiction 
Accept certain misdemeanor 
guilty pleas; worthless check 
misdemeanors $500 or less; 
small claims $1,000 or less* 



I Appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court are by right in Utilities Commission general rate cases, cases involving con- 
stitutional questions, and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may re- 
1 ourt of Appeals decisions in cases of significant public interest or cases involving legal principles of major significance. 
ill Appeals from these agencies lie directly to the Court of Appeals 

\ a matter of right, appeals go directly to the Supreme Court in criminal cases in which the defendant has been sentenced to death or 
life imprisonment, and in civil cases involving the involuntary annexation of territory by a municipality of 5,000 or more population. 
In all other cases appeal as of right is to the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may hear appeals directly from the 
irts in cases where delay would cause substantial harm or the Court of Appeals docket is unusually full. 



Note: I h district and superior courts have concurrent original jurisdiction in civil actions ((i.S. 7A-242). However, the district court 
proper di\ ision for the trial of civil actions in which the amount in controversy is $10,000 or less, and the superior court 
the proper division for the trial of civil actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 (U.S. 7A-243). ( I he 
m " 000 to $10,000 was made effective July I, 19X2) 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 



Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution estab- 
lishes the General Court of Justice which "shall constitute 
a unified judicial system for purposes of jurisdiction, 
operation, and administration, and shall consist of an 
Appellate Division, a Superior Court Division, and a 
District Court Division." 

The Appellate Division is comprised of the Supreme 
Court and the Court of Appeals. 

The Superior Court Division is comprised of the super- 
ior courts which hold sessions in the county seats of the 
100 counties of the State. The counties are grouped into 
judicial districts (34at the present time), and one or more 
superior court judges are elected for each of the judicial 
districts. A clerk of the superior court for each county is 
elected by the voters of the county. 

The District Court Division is comprised of the district 
courts. The General Assembly is authorised to divide the 
State into a convenient number of local court districts and 
prescribe where the district courts shall sit, but district 
court must sit in at least one place in each county. The 
General Assembly has provided that districts for pur- 
poses of the district court are co-terminous with superior 
court judicial districts. The Constitution also provides for 
one or more magistrates to be appointed in each county 
"who shall be officers of the district court." 

The State Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 1) also contains 
the term, "judicial department, "stating that "The General 
Assembly shall have no power to deprive the judicial 
department of any power or jurisdiction that rightfully 
pertains to it as a co-ordinate department of the govern- 
ment, nor shall it establish or authorize any courts other 
than as permitted by this Article." The terms, "General 
Court of Justice" and "Judicial Department" are almost, 
but not quite, synonymous. It may be said that the Judi- 
cial Department encompasses all of the levels of court 
designated as the General Court of Justice plus all admin- 
istrative and ancillary services within the Judicial De- 
partment. 

The original jurisdictions and routes of appeal between 
the several levels of court in North Carolina's system of 
courts are illustrated in the chart on the opposite page. 

Criminal Cases 

Trial of misdemeanor cases is within the original juris- 
diction of the district courts. Some misdemeanor offenses 
are tried by magistrates, who are also empowered to 
accept pleas of guilty to certain offenses and impose fines 
in accordance with a schedule set by the Conference of 
Chief District Court Judges. Most trials of misdemeanors 
are by district court judges, who also hold preliminary, 
"probable cause" hearings in felony cases. Trial of felony 
cases is within the jurisdiction of the superior courts. 

Decisions of magistrates may be appealed to the district 
court judge. In criminal cases there is no trial by jury 
available at the district court level; appeal from the dis- 
trict courts'judgments in criminal cases is to the superior 
courts for trial de novo before a jury. Except in life- 



imprisonment or death sentence cases (which are appealed 
to the Supreme Court), appeal from the superior courts is 
to the Court of Appeals. 

Civil Cases 

The 1 00 clerks of superior court are ex officio judges of 
probate and have original jurisdiction in probate and 
estates matters. The clerks also have jurisdiction over 
such special proceedings as adoptions, partitions, con- 
demnations under the authority of eminent domain, and 
foreclosures. Rulings of the clerk may be appealed to the 
superior court. 

The district courts have original jurisdiction injuvenile 
proceedings, domestic relations cases, petitions for invol- 
untary commitment to a mental hospital, and are the 
"proper" courts for general civil cases where the amount 
in litigation is $10,000 or less. If the amount in litigation is 
$800* or less and the plaintiff in the case so requests, the 
chief district court judge may assign the case for initial 
hearing by a magistrate. Magistrates'' decisions may be 
appealed to the district court. Trial by jury for civil cases 
is available in the district courts; appeal from the judg- 
ment of a district court in a civil case is to the North 
Carolina Court of Appeals. 

The superior courts are the proper courts for trial of 
general civil cases where the amount of litigation is more 
than $ 10,000. Appeals from decisions of most administra- 
tive agencies is first within thejurisdiction of the superior* 
courts. Appeal from the superior courts in civil cases is to 
the Court of Appeals. 

Administration 

The North Carolina Supreme Court has the "general to 
supervise and control the proceedings of any of the other 
courts of the General Court of Justice." (G.S. 7A-32(b)). 

In addition to this grant of general supervisory power, 
the North Carolina General Statutes provide certain 
Judicial Department officials with specific powers and 
responsibilities for the operation of the court system. The 
Supreme Court has the responsibility for prescribing 
rules of practice and procedures for the appellate courts 
and for prescribing rules for the trial courts to supplement 
those prescribed by statute. The Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court designates one of the judges of the Court 
of Appeals to be its Chief Judge, who in turn is responsi- 
ble for scheduling the sessions of the Court of Appeals. 

The chart on the following page illustrates specific 
responsibilities for administration of the trial courts 
vested in Judicial Department officials by statute. The 
Chief Justice appoints the Director and an Assistant 
Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts; this 
Assistant Director also serves as the Chief Justice's 
administrative assistant. The schedule of sessions of 
superior court in the 100 counties is set by the Supreme 



'Increased to $1,000 effective October 1, 1981 (G.S. 7A-2I0). 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 



Court: assignment of the State's rotating superior court 
judges is the responsibility oi the Chief Justice. Finally, 
the Chiel Justice designates a chief district court judge for 
each o\ the State's 34 judicial districts from among the 
elected district court judges of the respective districts. 
1 hese judges have special responsibilities for the schedul- 
ing of the district courts and magistrates' courts uithm 
their respective districts, as well as general local-level 
administrative responsibilities. 

I he Administrative Office of the Courts is responsible 
for direction o\ non-judicial, administrative and business 
affairs o\ the Judicial Department. Included among its 
functions are fiscal management, personnel services, 
information and statistical services, supervision of record 
keeping in the trial court clerks' offices, liaison with the 
legislative and executive departments of government, 
court facility evaluation, purchase and contract, educa- 



tion and training, coordination of the program for provi- 
sion of legal counsel to indigent persons, juvenile proba- 
tion and after-care, trial court administrator services, 
planning, and general administrative services. 

I he clerk of superior court in each county acts as clerk 
for both the superior and district courts. Until 1980, the 
clerk also served as chairman of the county's calendar 
committee, which set the civil case calendars. Effective 
July I, 1980, these committees were eliminated; day-to- 
day calendaring of civil cases is now done by the clerk of 
superior court or by a "trial court administrator" in some 
districts, under the supervision of the senior resident 
superior court judge and chief district court judge. The 
criminal case calendars in both superior and district 
courts are set by the district attorney of the respective 
district. 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 
Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts 



CHIEF JUSTICE 

and 

SUPREME COURT 




'hief District 
Court Judges 



DISTRICT 
COURTS 



1 The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the superior courts (as well as other 
trial courts). The schedule of superior courts is approved by the Supreme Court; assignments of superior court 
judges, who rotate from district to district, are the responsibility of the Chief Justice. 

2 The Director and an Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts are appointed by and serve at 
the pleasure of the Chief Justice. 

'The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the district courts (as well as other 
trial courts). The Chief Justice appoints a chief district court judge in each of the 34 judicial districts from the 
judges elected in the respective districts. 

4 The Administrative Office of the Courts is empowered to prescribe a variety of rules governing the operation of the 
offices of the 100 clerks of superior court, and to obtain statistical data and other information from officials in the 
Judicial Department. 

5 The district attorney sets the criminal-case trial calendars. In each district, the senior resident superior court judge 
and the chief district court judge are empowered to supervise the calendaring procedures for civil cases in their re- 
spective courts. 

b In addition to certain judicial functions, the clerk of superior court performs administrative, fiscal and record- 
keeping functions for both the superior court and district court of his county. Magistrates, who serve under the su- 
pervision of the chief district court judge, are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nominees 
submitted by the clerk of superior court. 

*Note: Effective September 1, 1981, District 17 was divided into Districts 1 7A and 17B, resulting in a total of 34 
judicial districts. 



I I 



THK Sl'PREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA* 



Chief Justice 
JOSEPH BRANCH 



J. Wll I 1 AM COPELAND 
JAMES G. EXUM, JR. 
DAVID M. BRII'l 



Associate Justices 



J. PHIL CARLTON 

LOUIS B. MEYER 

BURLEY B. MI ICHFl I , JR. 



J. Wll 1 PLESS, JR. 
I. BEVERLY LAKE 



Retired Chief Justices 

WILLIAM H BOBB1TT 

SUSIE SHARP 



Retired Justices 



J. FRANK HUSKINS 



Clerk 
J. Gregory Wallace 



Librarian 
Frances H. Hal 



DAN K. MOORF 
WALTER E. BROCK 



*As nt 30 .tunc 14X2. 



I ' 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1981-82 



The Supreme Court 



At the apex of the General Court of Justice is the 
seven-member Supreme Court, which sits in Raleigh to 
consider and decide questions of law presented in civil 
and criminal cases appealed from the lower courts. The 
Chief Justice and six associate justices are elected to 
eight-year terms by popular vote. There are two terms of 
the Supreme Court each year: a Spring Term commenc- 
ing on the first Tuesday in February and a Fall Term 
commencing on the first Tuesday in September. The 
Court sits only en banc. 

Jurisdiction 

The only original case jurisdiction exercised by the 
Supreme Court is over the censure and removal of judges 
upon the (non-binding) recommendations of the Judicial 
Standards Commission. The Court's appellate jurisdic- 
tion includes: 

- cases on appeal by right from the Court of Appeals 
(Utilities Commission general rate-setting cases, 
cases involving substantial constitutional questions, 
and cases in which there has been dissent in the 
Court of Appeals); 

- criminal cases on appeal by right from the superior 
courts (cases in which the defendant has been sen- 
tenced to death or life imprisonment); 

- cases in which review has been granted in the 
Supreme Court's discretion. 

Discretionary review by the Supreme Court directly from 
the trial courts may be granted when delay would likely 
cause substantial harm or when the workload of the 
Appellate Division is such that the expeditious adminis- 
tration of justice requires it. Most appeals are heard only 
after review by the Court of Appeals. 

Administration 

The Supreme Court has general power to supervise and 
control the proceedings of the other courts of the General 
Court of Justice. The Court has specific power to pres- 
cribe the rules of practice for the Appellate Division and 
supplementary rules of practice and procedure for the 
trial court divisions consistent with the rules prescribed 
by the General Assembly. The schedule of superior court 



sessions in the 100 counties is approved, yearly, by the 
Supreme Court. The Clerk of the Supreme Court, the 
Librarian of the Supreme Court, and the Appellate Divi- 
sion Reporter are appointed by the Supreme Court. 

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints the 
Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts and 
an Assistant Director, who serve at his pleasure. He also 
designates a Chief Judge from among the judges of the 
Court of Appeals and a Chief District Court Judge from 
among the judges in each of the State's 34 judicial dis- 
tricts. He assigns superior court judges, who regularly 
rotate from district to district, to the scheduled sessions of 
superior court in the 100 counties, and is also empowered 
to transfer district court judges to other districts for tem- 
porary or specialized duty. The Chief Justice (or another 
member of the Supreme Court designated by him) is the 
chairman of the Judicial Council, and two superior court 
judges, one district court judge and two district attorneys 
are appointed to two-year terms on the Council by the 
Chief Justice. He also appoints three of the seven 
members of the Judicial Standards Commission -- a 
judge of the Court of Appeals who serves as the Commis- 
sion's chairman, one superior court judge and one district 
court judge. 

Operations of the Court, 1981-82 

Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the 
198 1-82 fiscal year amounted to $1,365, 955, an increase of 
4.4% over total 1980-81 expenditures of $1,308,014. 
Expenditures for the Supreme Court during 198 1-82 con- 
stituted 1.5% of all General Fund expenditures for the 
operation of the entire Judicial Department during the 
fiscal year. 

A total of 309 appealed cases were before the Supreme 
Court during the fiscal year, including 68 cases pending 
on July 1, 1981 and 241 cases filed during the year. A total 
of 188 appealed cases were disposed of, with 121 cases 
remaining pending on June 30, 1982. 

A total of 790 petitions (requests to appeal) were before 
the Court during the 1981-82 year, with 692 petitions 
disposed of and 98 pending as of June 30, 1982. 

More specific data on the Court's workload is pre- 
sented on the following pages. 



13 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1981-82 

Supreme Court Caseload Inventory 

July 1, 1981-June30, 1982 



Petitions for Review 

Civ il domestic 

Juvenile 

Other ci\ il 

Criminal 

Postcom iction remedy 

Administrative agency decision 

Total Petitions for Review 

Appeals 

Civil domestic 

Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic 

appeals 
Juvenile 

Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals 
Other civil 
Petitions for review granted that became other civil 

appeals 
Criminal, defendant sentenced to death 
Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment 
Other criminal 
Petitions tor review granted that became other criminal 

appeals 
Petitions for review granted that became postconviction 

remedv eases 
Administrative agency decision 
Petitions for review granted that became appeals ot 

administrative agency decision 

Total appeals 

Other Proceedings 

1 \i inordinary writs 
Advisory opinion 
Rule amendments 
Motions 

Total other proceedings 



Pending 






Pending 


7/1/81 


Filed 


Disposed 


6/30/82 


8 


53 


37 


4 


2 


6 


6 


2 


29 


181 


165 


4S 


35 


168 


174 


29 


33 


252 


273 


12 


2 


41 


37 


6 



109 



681 



692 



98 






2 


2 


I) 


4 


5 


6 


3 





1 


1 





2 


2 


3 


1 


12 


28 


29 


1 l 


x 


34 


24 


IX 


8 


8 


7 


9 


24 


XI 


60 


47 


2 


33 


23 


12 


3 


22 


17 


8 



5 


1 1 


10 


6 





10 


5 


5 


68 


241 


188 


121 


3 


56 


56 


3 





1 


1 








10 


10 





22 


470 


479 


1 3 



25 



537 



546 



1<> 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1981-82 

Submission of Cases Reaching Decision Stage 
July 1, 1981-June30, 1982 



Cases Argued 

Civil 
Criminal 

Total cases argued 



70 
108 

178 



Submissions Without Argument 

By motion of the parties (Appellate Rule 30 (d)) 
By order of the Court (Appellate Rule 30 (f)) 

Total submissions without argument 

Total Cases Reaching Decision Stage 



3 
181 



Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings by the Supreme Court 

July 1, 1981-June 30, 1982 



Petitions for Review 

Civil 

Juvenile 

Criminal 

Postconviction Remedy 

Administrative Agency Decision 

Total Petitions for Review 



Granted 


Denit 


39 


163 


2 


4 


22 


152 


2 


176 


10 


27 



75 



522 



Dismissed/ Withdrawn Total Disposed 

202 

6 

174 

95 273 

37 

95 692 



Other Proceedings 

Extraordinary Writs 
Rule Amendments 
Advisory Opinion 
Motions 

Total Other Proceedings 



l ( ) 



37 



56 

K) 

l 

479 

546 



15 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1981-82 
Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals With Published Opinion 















Reversed 






Total 


(use Types 


Affirm 


ed 


Modified 


Re^ 


ersed 


Remanded 


R 


emanded 


Disposed 


Ci\ il domestic 


(l 




1 




? 


1 







5 


Ju\ enilc 












1 


? 







4 


Other c\\ il 


10 




7 




6 


If. 







39 


Criminal (death sentence) 


5 









1 


1 







7 


Criminal (life sentence) 


47 




(i 




7 


1 




2 


57 


Other criminal 


12 




1 




6 


5 




1 


25 


Postcom iction remedy 


1 




















1 


Administrative agency 


2 




3 




1 


6 




1 


1 ? 


decision 





















Totals 



77 



12 



25 



33 



151 



Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals with Per Curiam Decision 



Case Types 

Ci\ il domestic 
Juvenile 
Other civil 

Criminal (death sentence; 
Criminal (life sentence) 
Other criminal 
Postconv iction remedy 
Administrative agency 
decision 









Reversed 






Total 


Affirmed 


Modified 


Reversed 


Reman 


ded 


R 


emanded 


Disposed 














































9 


1 





1 









1 1 


















(1 





I 


















1 


8 





(1 












X 


(i 





















1 


















1 



Totals 



19 1 1 

Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals by Dismissal or Withdrawal 

Case Types Dismissed or 

Withdrawn 



1 domestic 
I u ve n i It- 
Other civil 

( i iminal (death sentence) 
Criminal (life sentence) 
OMi'i criminal 

- mi. iction remedy 
Administrative agency decision 



21 



lotals 



16 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1981-82 

Manner of Disposition of Appeals in the Supreme Court 
July 1, 1981-June 30, 1982 




Dismissal 



Per Curiam Decisions 



Type of Disposition of Petitions in the Supreme Court 
July 1, 1981-June 30, 1982 




Granted 



Dismissed, Withdrawn 



17 



u 

E 

= 









e* 










— c "> 










8-4) 










•s "o ^ 










O c « 










H S vj 










a. 


in ^> 

_ 33 








Pending 
Decision 
(Argued) 


1-150 > 
Days D 








ON 










o </> 










ON >» 










• si 




rs 






° Q 




X 










o^ 






_. <*> 




— « 




_ 


® £ 




c; 




O c 


AQ 




m 












o E 


O o 






>-> ox 


> « 




3 




3Q 




!-! 




"° i 




r~\ 


V- 




« ■< 


t/) 


X 


c 






?£ 


X 








oQ 


a* 


aj 






C^ 


^* 


S£ 






S ^ 


Z 


< 

■a 




.2 o <— 


AQ 


s 


c 




© i*> 


z 


s 




wait 

ppell 
Brie 


\0 ;»-. 


c 


3 




5 Q 


< 


-*- 


"7 

s 


<< 




K 


S>-a 


3 




o Q 


UJ 


£C 


r 




</) 


- 

O 




i- 



*-- 


(/i 


2 ^ 

AQ 


Q 
Z 


u 


c 
E 


ot"*- 

= C V. 




=1 


3 

Si 


5 "3 £ 


SQ 


z 


•3 


< 


<t 


^ C/5 


c 


c 

5J 


"a 


* s? 


H 


P- 


O 




oQ 


< 


u. 







o ^ 


N 
7 


s 


<— 


^~s 


«r> >> 


c 

u 


■>■. 

-a 


ox 

c 


v- si 

AQ 


< 


E 


0) 


"3 S O 


2*. 


o 


u 

0. 


z 




3° 




2 




i_ 


° >» 




X 




0. 


* « 










oQ 



m — 



on on r- O — — 

<^4 -^t «N — 



0) 

a. 



73 



— — < (N rn CN O fN 



O ^O O <^J rn O <"*"> 



O <^J O O — O — ' 



O O O ci O — O 



O — O "* ^f O rj 



— ^o-^too<^>oo 



o — — <^> o o o 



o — O — <^4 o o 



O rj O O — ' O CJ 



o o o 



— o — 



O O — i lO (N O O 



o — ■ o <■*■> — o o 



O O <N — O O O 



O O <N Tfr O O O 



O O — r— O O O 



u 











o 




















V; 




















'J 










OJ 


<D 








-a 


c 


aj 




>% 


> 


<u 


■j 




T3 


u 


* ' 


c 




OJ 


c 




OJ 




6 


(31 


A 


c 




o 

•— 


ea 


xi 




i 


c 


aj 




/.J 


cd 


o 


> 


^3 


"— 


■j 


-J 


^ 


"rt 


Tj 


c 


/. 


e 


c 


o 


s 






•~ 


'J 
f 

o 






1 




's 

T3 


U 


U 


5 


Oh 


< 






s 

c 
c 

a. 

S 






~3 




1 

C 
a! 

X) 

c 



90 


c 




o 




u 








X. 




-3 




•J 












a 




c_ 




ca 




^ 








x 




— 









j 




-.j 




at 




00 




c 








*- J 




'J5 


■f 


? 


M 


< 


OJ 


f| , 


CL 





Q. 


f 


< 


2 


__ 


^ 


C9 


g 


<— 







< 


H 


* 



NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT 

Appeals Docketed and Disposed of During the Years, 1978-79—1981-82 



400 



300 



\ 
U 
\l 
B 

I 
R 

O 

1 

( 
\ 
S 
I 
S 



200 



|()() 



Appeals Docketed 
Appeals Disposed ol 



198 



1X5 



243 




IKS 



1978-74 



1979-80 



1980-81 



1981-82 



19 



NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT 

Petitions Docketed and Allowed During the Years, 1978-79—1981-82 



SOD 



\ 

I 

M 

B 

I 

R 

< ) 
I 

( 

\ 

S 

I 

S 



W)(l 



200 



Petitions Docketed 
Petit mils Allowed 




75 



1978-79 



I979-X0 



I9K0-NI 



I9KI-K2 



20 



THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA* 



Chief Judge 
NAOMI E. MORRIS 



Judges 



R. A.HEDRICk 
EARLW. VAUGHN 
ROBERT M.MARTIN 
EDWARD B.CLARK 
GERALDARNOED 
JOHN WEBB 



HARRY C. MARTIN 

HUGH A. WELLS 

CECIL J. HILL 

WILLIS P. WHICHARD 

CHARLES L. BECTON 



Retired Judges 
HUGH B. CAMPBELL 
ERANK M. PARKER 

Clerk 
FRANCIS E. DAIL 



*As of 30 June 19X2 



21 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1981-82 



The Court of Appeals 



The 12-judge Court of Appeals is North Carolina's 
intermediate appellate court: it hears a majority of the 
appeals originating from the State's trial courts. The 
Court regularly sits in Raleigh, and it may sit in other 
locations in the State as authorized by the Supreme 
Court. Sessions outside of Raleigh have not been regular 
or frequent. Judges of the Court of Appeals are elected by 
popular vote for eight-year terms. A Chief Judge for the 
Court is designated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme 
Court and serves in that capacity at the pleasure of the 
Chief Justice. 

Cases are heard by panels of three judges, with the 
Chief Justice responsible for assigning members of the 
Court to the four panels. Insofar as practicable, each 
judge is to be assigned to sit a substantially equal number 
of times with each other judge. The Chief Judge presides 
over the panel of which he or she is a member and desig- 
nates a presiding judge for the other panels. 

The Chief Judge (or another member of the Court of 
Appeals designated by the Chief Judge) is an ex officio 
member of the Judicial Council. One member of the 
Court of Appeals, designated by the Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court, serves as chairman of the Judicial Stand- 
ards Commission. 



sions of the Property lax Commission. (Appeals from 
the decisions of other administrative agencies lie first 
within the jurisdiction of the superior courts.) 

In the event of a recommendation from the Judicial 
Standards Commission to censure or remove from office 
a justice ol the Supreme Court, the (non-binding) 
recommendation would be considered by the Chief Judge 
and the six judges next senior in service on the Court of 
Appeals (excluding the judge who serves as the Commis- 
sion's chairman). Such seven-member panel would have 
sole jurisdiction to act upon the Commission's recom- 
mendation. 

Expenses of the Court, 1981-82 

Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during the 
1981-82 fiscal year totalled $1,945,081, an increase of 
3.4% over 1980-81 expenditures of $1,881,570. Expendi- 
tures for the Court of Appeals during 1981-82 amounted 
to 2.2% of all General Eund expenditures for operation of 
the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year. This 
percentage share of the total is virtually identical to the 
Court of Appeals' percentage share of the Judicial 
Department total in the 1980-81 fiscal year. 



Jurisdiction 

The bulk of the caseload of the Court of Appeals con- 
sists o| eases appealed from the trial courts. The Court 
also hears appeals directly from any final order or deci- 
sion of the North Carolina Utilities Commission*; the 
Industrial Commission; certain final orders or decisions 
of the North Carolina State Bar and the Commissioner of 
Insurance; and appeals from certain final orders or deci- 



Case Data, 1981-82 

A total of 1,413 appealed cases were filed before the 
Court of Appeals during the period, July 1, 1980 -June 
30, 1982. A total ol 1,212 cases were disposed of during 
the same period. During the same year, a total of 581 
petitions and 1 ,228 motions were filed before the Court of 
Appeals. 

Greater detail on the workload of the Court of Appeals 
is shown in the tables and graph on the following pages. 



I \ Section I 2( I ) ol the State Constitution was approved by the voters at the June, 1982 election, and effective January I . 
Ci neral A .cmbly to provide for appeals from the Utilities Commission directly to the Su picnic Court. Such legislation has not 



22 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
July 1, 1981-June30, 1982 

Cases on Appeal Filings Dispositions 

Civil cases appealed from district courts 249 

Civil cases appealed from superior courts 515 

Civil cases appealed from administrative agencies 90 

Criminal cases appealed from superior courts 559 

Total 1,413 1,212 



Petitions 

Allowed 6K 

Denied 499 

Remanded 2 

Total 581 569 



Motions 

Allowed 1,109 

Denied 330 

Total 1,228 1,439 

Total Cases on Appeal, Petitions and Motions 3,222 3,220 



23 



INVENTORY OF CASES APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

July 1, 1981 -June 30, 1982 





Judicial 




Cases Filed 




Other 


Total 
Cases 


Total 


Judicial 


Appeals from 


Appeals from 


Superior Court 


Cases 


Division 


District 


District Courts 


Civil 


Criminal 


Appeals 


Filed 


Disposed 


1 


1 




5 


16 


17 





58 


74 




•) 




1 


1 I 


l » 





23 


24 




] 




6 


28 


26 





60 


46 




4 




11 


11 


33 





ss 


24 




5 




1 1 


15 


21 





47 


59 




6 




2 


5 


8 





is 


23 




7 




2 


7 


15 





74 


16 




X 




8 


18 


JO 





56 


4(1 


II 


9 




1 


7 


x 


(1 


16 


14 




10 




24 


56 


25 


90 


195 


164 




1 1 




12 


x 


6 


(i 


26 


16 




12 




15 


10 


57 





62 


69 




13 




3 


2 


4 





9 


Id 




14 




6 


25 


21 





S2 


59 




I5A 


B* 


6 


26 


19 


(1 


si 


46 




16 




5 


4 


14 





23 


22 


III 


17A 


B* 


5 


1 5 


1 1 





29 


50 




IS 




17 


54 


56 





X7 


XI) 




I9A 


B* 


X 


1 1 


22 





41 


51 




20 




5 


is 


l«) 





59 


4(1 




21 




19 


28 


50 





77 


69 




n 




6 


22 


8 


(1 


56 


19 




23 




12 


1 1 


x 


(1 


51 


28 


l\ 


24 




2 


6 


7 





is 


8 




25 




10 


20 


21 





si 


55 




26 




IX 


41 


48 





107 


xs 




27A 


B* 


5 


21 


JO 





54 


SI 




2X 




Hi 


14 


7 





51 


43 




29 




9 


16 


17 





42 


39 




50 




5 


14 


2 





21 


IX 



Totals 



249 



515 



'Combined totals foi Districts ISA and I SB, Districts l7Aan< 
Separate figures for these districts were not available. 



I7B, 



559 90 1,413 1,212 

Districts !9Aand I9B, and Districts 27A and 27B are shown. 



M 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CASES BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS 

July I,1981-June30, 1982 

Cases Disposed by Written Opinion 



Judicial 


Judicial 


Cases 


Division 


District 


Affirmed 


I 


1 




18 




2 




19 




3 




n 




4 




15 




5 




30 




6 




13 




7 




9 




8 




31 


1! 


9 




8 




10 




94 




1 1 




13 




12 




58 




13 




5 




14 




37 




15A, 


B* 


29 




16 




17 


Ill 


I7A/B* 


12 




18 




54 




19A/ 


B* 


24 




20 




32 




21 




41 




22 




8 




23 




15 


IV 


24 




3 




25 




22 




26 




SX 




27A/B* 


36 




28 




31 




29 




2(> 




30 




12 


TOTALS 






801 





Cases Affirmed 


Total Cases 






Cases 


in Part, Reversed 


by Written 


Other Cases 


Total Cases 


eversed 


in Part 


Opinion 


Disposed 


Disposed 


3 


2 


23 


1 


24 


4 


1 


24 





24 


10 


2 


41 


3 


46 


s 





21 


I 


24 


5 


1 


36 


3 


39 


l > 





22 


1 


23 


6 





IS 


1 


16 


4 


4 


V) 


1 


40 


4 





12 


2 


14 


46 


X 


148 


16 


164 


1 


1 


IS 


1 


16 


x 





66 


3 


69 


3 


2 


10 


o 


10 


13 


2 


52 


7 


59 


8 


5 


42 


4 


46 


3 


o 


20 


2 


22 


14 


2 


28 


2 


30 


19 


1 


74 


6 


xo 


3 


2 


29 


2 


31 


5 


1 


38 


2 


40 


17 


6 


64 


5 


69 


6 


3 


17 


2 


I 1 ) 


7 


1 


23 


s 


28 


4 





7 


1 


X 


6 


5 


33 


2 


35 


16 


4 


78 


7 


X5 


7 





43 


X 


51 


12 





43 





43 


7 


2 


35 


4 


39 


4 


1 


17 


1 


IX 



262 



% 



1,119 



93 



1,212 



♦Combined totals for Districts 15A and I5B, Districts I7A and I7B, Districts 19A and I9B, and Districts 27A and 27B are shown. 
Separate figures for these districts were not available. 



25 



-a 

41 

c a. 



i~"i — sC -3- on -3- © r-- 



fnOfNO-hoo* 

cs — i 



O r*"> <"•"> — SO <N r- 

^ n in i~- \o -j m 



f i rw \o in o> so 
(<i r- ^t m*i m <t 



o 
o 



< 
— 

a. 

< 
— 

- 

o 

w 

X 

H 

c 
- 

z 






C 
3 
•-5 



3C 



H 



a 
z 

< 

r. 
Z 



5 



o •"= 



O "O 

._ _4> 
'•3 rT 



© © o o © — 



© — <■«-"> OO oo 



04 (N 
r^4 — 



— — 04 



(N "^t rs (N 



©©©©©©©© 



inr-^oi^OvOm 



o^ ^ ^ o in n iO oo 

— — ^t i/l ^ — — ro 



©©©©©©©© 



C-i Os Os © >n r- rn os 
— so Tt — 



— m © m © <n tj- <-4 



©©©©©©©© 



Tj-t--moo — r-socs) 
>n — 



inmnrnoovOrfio 
— so — >n ^ i/i M 



© © © © © © © 



n n a oo n am 
— est — rsi — 



n m \t — © 04 © 



©©©©©©© 



— os — — so in as 



in f- os — r-- so <n 
n so — rn m — i rsi 



© — ©©©©© 



ro r*1 <~0 Os Os m I — 



© *3" C-4 © — ro — i 



©©©©©©© 



OS OO OS — OO ro <"*"> 



— so © so t^ O m 
CN "* Os Tt — ' ro C4 



r-~rsir~-rsifN©in — 

n "i m vo ^ m m in 



o> ri i >/•, 



r<-, m rr, Tf 
rr, — ri — 



'tfNI^CCO'nMTt 

n oo - -os — r^r-<-<-) 



n oo - H in so so O 
— > oo — tj- rsi — « rsi 



oo oo — i so — '* >n 
rfr © in so sO rn m 



ri oi m oi 't - 
- n n n - - 



Os. 



30 






D. 

1) 

C 

o 



03 





< 




r~ 




oj 




v) 






o 


CJ 


r> 


~ 


o 


/ 








b 




T3 




C 




- 




cc 


OS 


a- 


o 




l-H 


■a 


T— 1 


c 




- 




< 



— — 


as 


in 


in 


-t- 


■-', 


OS 


— 


<■«"> so 


c i 


i^ 


i". 


in 


-r 


e 

00 

1-N 


O. 

l 
T3 

c 
- 


m so 


r i 


© 


— 


r~ 


Os 


l-H 


1 


1 ' 


m 


ri 


' 


■ 




3C 





81 

C 
— 

z 



2 



■s3 .2 



r- as r-- <^4 t~- 

Tf <^4 — — r<", 



ri'l'^-Oino^O^ 
n o\ in Tf in — 






so os as r- r- rr, rx| 
m t^ n r<-, Tt ri <■»■) 






X 



02 



— r i X-, -}■ in o r- oo 



o- © — n r^, 



< 

i* in so 



< < 
r- oo as © 



<^4 r-4 <^4 r-4 



oo in r~- in ■* r~- 

rsi Tt as in <N rn 



X) 



Tf in so r~ oo as © 
r4 r) ri N IN <^4 rr, 



X. 



•-X: 


<r. 


rs 




^4 


— 


PH 


c 




-1. 



.2 o 
■a '? 





rt 












o 










EM 


~ 






'J 




75 


c 








f 





x: 


- 


H 


c 






O 


> 

- 



26 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

1977-1981 



3000 



!500 



\ 


2000 


1 




\1 




B 




1 




R 




o 


1500 


1 




C 




A 




s 




1 


1000 


s 





500 




1977 



197* 



1979 



19X0 



1981 



198 I -K2 



Filings and dispositions in this graph include appealed 
cases and petitions(not motions) in the Court of Appeals. 
The 1 98 1-82 bar is the only fiscal year bar in the graph; the 



data portrayed there overlap the 1981 (calendar year) 
data by six months. During 1 98 1-82, tilings exceeded 
dispositions by 213, the largest difference since 1977. 



27 



s 

= 



— 


— 


r 


~ 




rz 


<*• 




f 


y 




'.v 



~f 




28 



JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT* 

(As of June 30, 1982) 



FIRST DIVISION 
District 

1 J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City 

2 Elbert S. Peel, Jr., Williamston 

3 Robert D. Rouse, Jr., Farmville 
David E. Reid, Jr., Greenville 

4 Henry L. Stevens, III, Kenansville 
James R. Strickland, Jacksonville 

5 Bradford Tillery, Wilmington 
Napoleon B. Barefoot, Wilmington 

6 Richard B. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids 

Franklin R. Brown, Tarboro 
Charles B. Winberry, Rocky Mount 

8 R. Michael Bruce, Mount Olive 
James D. Llewellyn, Kinston 



SECOND DIVISION 

9 Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg 

10 James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh 
Robert L. Farmer, Raleigh 

A. Pilston Godwin, Jr., Raleigh 
Edwin S. Preston, Jr., Raleigh 

1 1 Wiley F. Bowen, Dunn 

12 E. Maurice Braswell, Fayetteville 
Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville 
D.B. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville 

13 Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown 

14 Thomas H. Lee, Durham 
Anthony M. Brannon, Bahama 
John C. Martin, Durham 

15A D. Marsh McLelland, Burlington 

15B F. Gordon Battle, Chapel Hill 

16 Samuel E. Britt, Lumberton 



THIRD DIVISION 
District 

17A Meber A. Morgan, Jr., Wentworth 

17B James M. Long, Pilot Mountain 

18 Charles T. Kivett, Greensboro 

W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro 
Edward K.. Washington, Greensboro 

I9A Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer 
James C. Davis, Concord 

19B Hal H. Walker, Asheboro 

20 F. Fetzer Mills, Wadesboro 
William H. Helms, Wingate 

21 William Z. Wood, Winston-Salem 
Judson D. DeRamus Jr., Winston-Salem 
William H. Freeman, Winston-Salem 

22 Robert A. Collier, Jr., Statesville 
Peter W. Hairston, Advance 

23 Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro 

FOURTH DIVISION 

24 Ronald W. Howell, Marshall 

25 Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory 
Claude S. Sitton, Morganton 

26 Frank W. Snepp, Jr., Charlotte 
Robert M. Burroughs, Charlotte 
Kenneth A. Griffin, Charlotte 
William T. Grist, Charlotte 
Clifton E. Johnson, Charlotte 

27A Robert W. Kirby, Cherryville 
Robert E. Gaines, Gastonia 

27B John R. Friday, Lincolnton 

28 Robert D. Lewis, Asheville 
C. Walter Allen, Asheville 

29 Hollis M. Owens, Rutherfordton 

30 Lacy H. Thornburg, Webster 



*ln districts with more than one resident judge, the senior resident judge is listed first. 



2^> 



SPECIAL JUDGES OK SUPERIOR COURT* 



Clarence P. Cornelius. Mooresville 
James A. Beany. Jr., Winston-Salem 
Charles C. 1 amni. Jr., Boone 



Arthur L. Lane, Fayetteville 
Donald L. Smith, Raleigh 
Russell (i. Walker, Asheboro 



EMERGENCY JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT 



Albert W. Cowper, Kinston 

George M. Fountain, Tarboro 

Hamilton H. Hobgood, Louisburg 



The Conference of Superior Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1982) 

Libert S. Peel, Jr., Williamston, President 

A. Pilston Godwin, Jr., Raleigh, President-Elect 

Robert D. Rouse, Jr., Farmville, Vice President 

Robert M. Burroughs, Charlotte, Secretary-Treasurer 

Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer, and Lacy H. Thornburg, 
Webster, Additional Executive Committee Members 



10. 1982, two special superior court ]udgcships were vacant. 



30 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1981-82 



The Superior Courts 



North Carolina's superior courts are the general juris- 
diction trial courts for the State. In 1981-82, there were 60 
"resident" superior court judges elected to office in the 34 
judicial districts for eight-year terms by Statewide ballot. 
In addition, eight "special" superior court judges are 
appointed by the Governor for four-year terms. 



Jurisdiction 



The superiorcourt has original jurisdiction in all felony 
cases and in those misdemeanor cases which originate by 
grand jury indictment. (Most misdemeanors are tried first 
in the district court, from which conviction may be 
appealed to the superior court for trial de novo by a jury. 
No trial by jury is available for criminal cases in district 
court.) The superior court is the proper court for the trial 
of civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds 
$5,000*, and it has jurisdiction over appeals from all 
administrative agencies except the Utilities Commission, 
Industrial Commission, certain rulings of the Commis- 
sioner of Insurance, the Board of Bar Examiners of the 
North Carolina State Bar, and the Property Tax Com- 
mission. Appeals from these agencies lie directly to the 
North Carolina Court of Appeals.** Regardless of the 
amount in controversy, the original civil jurisdiction of 
the superior court does not include domestic relations 
cases, which are heard in the district courts, or probate 
and estates matters and certain special proceedings heard 
first by the clerk of superior court as ex officio judge of 
probate. Rulings of the clerk are within the appellate 
jurisdiction of the superior court. 



Administration 

The 100 counties of North Carolina were grouped into 
34 judicial districts during 1981-82. Each district has at 
least one resident superior court judge who has certain 
administrative responsibilities for his home district, such 
as providing for civil case calendaring procedures. (Crim- 
inal case calendars are prepared by the district attorneys.) 
In districts with more than one resident superior court 
judge, the judge senior in service on the superior court 
bench exercises these supervisory powers. 

The judicial districts are grouped into four divisions for 
the rotation of superior court judges, as shown on the 
map on Page 27. Within the division, a resident superior 



court judge is required to rotate through the judicial 
districts, holding court for at least six months in each, 
then moving on to his next assignment. A special superior 
court judge may be assigned to hold court in any of the 
1 00 counties. Assignments of all superior court judges are 
made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Under 
the Constitution of North Carolina, at least two sessions 
(a week each) of superior court are held annually in each 
of the 100 counties. The vast majority of counties have 
more than the Constitutional minimum of two weeks of 
superior court annually. Many larger counties have 
superior court in session about every week in the year. 

Resources 

A total of $17,618,583 was expended on the operation 
of the superior courts during the 1981-82 fiscal year. This 
represents an increase of 8% over 1980-81 expenditures of 
$16,308,092. Total expenditures include costs for the 
State's district attorneys' offices, as well as the salaries 
and operating expenses of the 68 superior court judges, 
the court reporters assigned to superior court, and staff 
support. The 1981-82 total amounted to 19.9% of the 
General Fund expenditures for the operations of the 
Judicial Department. This percentage is approximately 
the same as the superior courts' percentage share of total 
Judicial Department expenditures in 1980-81. 

1981-82 Caseload 

Including both civil and criminal cases, a total of 84,57 1 
cases were filed in the superior courts during 1981-82, an 
increase of 2,130 cases (2.6%) over the total of 82,441 
cases that were filed in 1980-81. The increase in filings 
represents a considerable drop in the rate of increase 
when compared with the superior court filing levels in 
previous years. The average annual increase in the 
number of cases filed in the four years prior to 198 1-82 
was 6,925 cases. 

Superior court case dispositions also increased from 
80,303 in 1980-81 to combined criminal and civil disposi- 
tions in 1981-82 of 82,165. This disposition rate did not 
equal the number of cases filed. As a result, there was an 
increase of six percent in the total number of superior 
court cases pending, from 34,260 cases at the beginning of 
the fiscal year to a total of 36,301 on June 30, 1982. 

More detailed information on the flow of cases through 
the superior courts is included in Part IV of this report. 



♦Increased to $10,000, effective July I, I9S2 
** An amendment to Article IV, Section I 2( 1 ) ol the State Constitution was approved by the voters at the June, 1982 election, and effective January I , 
1983, it authorizes the General Assembly to provide for appeals from the Utilities Commission directly to the Supreme Court. Such legislation has not 
yet been enacted. 



31 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* 
(As of June 30, 1982) 



District 



John T. Chaffin, Elizabeth City 
Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City 
John R. Parker, Elizabeth City 

Hallett S. Ward. Washington 
James W. Hardison, Williamston 

Herbert O. Phillips, 111, Morehead City 

E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville 

James E. Martin, Bethel 

James E. Regan, Oriental 

H. Horton Roundtree, Greenville 

Robert D. Wheeler, Grifton 

Kenneth W. Turner, Rose Hill 
E. Alex Erwin, III, Jacksonville 
Walter P. Henderson, Trenton 
James N. Martin, Clinton 
Stephen M. Williamson, Kenansville 

Gilbert H. Burnett, Wilmington 
Carter T. Lambeth, Wilmington 
Charles H. Rice, III, Wilmington 
John M. Walker, Wilmington 

Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids 
Harold P. McCoy, Scotland Neck 
Robert E. Williford, Lewiston 

George Britt, Tarboro 
James E. Ezzell, Rocky Mount 
Allen W. Harrell, Wilson 
Albert S. Thomas, Jr., Wilson 

J. Patrick Exum, Kinston 
Kenneth R. Ellis, Fremont 
Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston 
Arnold O. Jones, Goldsboro 
Paul M. Wright, Goldsboro 

Claude W. Allen, Jr., Oxford 
Ben U. Allen, Jr., Henderson 
J. Larry Senter, Franklinton 
Charles W. Wilkinson, Oxford 

George F. Bason, Raleigh 
Henry V. Barnette, Jr., Raleigh 
Stafford G. Bullock, Raleigh 
George R. Greene, Raleigh 
Narley L. Cashwell, Raleigh 
Russell G. Sherrill, III, Raleigh 
Philip O. Redwine, Raleigh 
Acie L. Ward, Raleigh 



District 

1 1 Elton C. Pridgen, Smithfield 
William Christian, Sanford 
K. Edward Greene, Dunn 
W. Pope Lyon, Smithfield 

12 Sol. G. Cherry, Fayetteville 
Joseph E. Dupree, Raeford 
Charles Lee Guy, Fayetteville 
Lacy S. Hair, Fayetteville 
Anna E. Keever, Fayetteville 

13 William E. Wood, Whiteville 
William C. Gore, Jr., Whiteville 
J. Wilton Hunt, Sr., Whiteville 
Roy D. Trest, Shallotte 

14 J. Milton Read, Jr., Durham 
Karen B. Galloway, Durham 
David Q. LaBarre, Durham 
William G. Pearson, II, Durham 

15A J. B. Allen, Jr., Burlington 
W.S. Harris, Jr., Graham 
James K. Washburn, Burlington 

15B Stanley Peele, Chapel Hill 

Patricia S. Hunt, Hillsborough 
Donald L. Paschal, Siler City 

16 John S. Gardner, Lumberton 
B. Craig Ellis, Laurinburg 
Charles G. McLean, Lumberton 
Herbert L. Richardson, Lumberton 

17 Leonard H. vanNoppen, Danbury 
Foy Clark, Mount Airy 

Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy 
Peter M. McHugh, Reidsville 

18 Robert L. Cecil, High Point 
Robert Bencini, Jr., High Point 
William L. Daisy, Greensboro 
Thomas G. Foster, Jr., Greensboro 
William K. Hunter, High Point 
Joseph R. John, Greensboro 
Edmund Lowe, High Point 

John F. Yeattes, Jr., Greensboro 

19A Robert L. Warren, Concord 
Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord 
Clarence E. Horton, Jr., Kannapolis 
Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury 



hid Distrit i Courl Judge lor each district is listed first 



52 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* 
(As of June 30, 1982) 



District 

19B L.T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro 
William M. Neely, Asheboro 

20 Donald R. Huffman, Wadesboro 
Michael E. Beale, Southern Pines 
Ronald W. Burris, Albemarle 
Kenneth W. Honneycutt, Monroe 
Walter M. Lampley, Rockingham 

21 Abner Alexander, Winston-Salem 
James A. Harrill, Jr., Winston-Salem 
Robert Kason Keiger, Winston-Salem 
David R. Tanis, Winston-Salem 
Gary B. Tash, Winston-Salem 

22 Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville 
Samuel A. Cathey, Statesville 
George T. Fuller, Lexington 
Robert W. Johnson, Statesville 

23 Samuel T. Osborne, Wilkesboro 
Max F. Ferree, Wilkesboro 
John T. Kilby, Jefferson 

24 Robert H. Lacey, Newland 
Charles P. Ginn, Boone 

R. Alexander Lyerly, Banner Elk 

25 Livingston Vernon, Morganton 
Edward J. Crotty, Hickory 
Robert A. Mullinax, Newton 
L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory 
Samuel McD. Tate, Morganton 



District 

26 



Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte 
Walter H. Bennett, Jr., Charlotte 
L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte 
Daphene L. Cantrell, Charlotte 
Resa L. Harris, Charlotte 
William G. Jones, Charlotte 
James E. Lanning, Charlotte 
Theodore P. Matus, II, Charlotte 
William H. Scarborough, Charlotte 
T. Michael Todd, Charlotte 



27A Lewis Bulwinkle, Gastonia 

Berlin H. Carpenter, Jr., Gastonia 
J. Ralph Phillips, Gastonia 
Donald E. Ramseur, Gastonia 

27B A. Max Harris, Ellenboro 
James T. Bowen, Lincolnton 
George W. Hamrick, Shelby 

28 James O. Israel, Jr., Candler 
Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden 
Peter L. Roda, Asheville 

William Marion Styles, Black Mountain 

29 Robert T. Gash, Brevard 
Loto J. Greenlee, Marion 

Zoro J. Guice, Jr., Hendersonville 
Thomas N. Hix, Hendersonville 

30 Robert Leatherwood, III, Bryson City 
J. Charles McDarris, Waynesville 
John J. Snow, Jr., Murphy 



r 



The Association of District Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1982) 

Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids, President 

Samuel McD. Tate, Morganton, Vice President 

J. B. Allen, Jr., Burlington, Secretary-Treasurer 

George M. Britt, Tarboro 
Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden 
William G. Pearson, III, Durham 

Additional Executive Committee Members 



*The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first. 



33 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1981-82 
The District Courts 



North Carolina's district courts are trial courts with 
original jurisdiction of the overwhelming majority of the 
cases handled by the State's court system. There were 142 
district court judges serving in 34 judicial districts during 
1980-81. These judges are elected to four-year terms by 
the voters of their respective districts. 

A total of 620* magistrate positions were authorized as 
oi June 30. 1982. Of this number, 520 positions were 
designated as full-time, and 100 positions were specified 
as part-time. Magistrates are appointed by the senior 
resident superior court judge from nominations submit- 
ted by the clerk of superior court of their county, and they 
are supervised by the chief district court judge of their 
district. 

Jurisdiction 

The jurisdiction of the district court extends to virtually 
all misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings in most 
felony cases, all juvenile proceedings, involuntary com- 
mitments and recommitments to mental hospitals, and 
domestic relations cases. The district courts have concur- 
rent jurisdiction with the superior courts in general civil 
cases, but the district courts are the proper courts for the 
trial of civil cases where the amount in controversy is 
S5.000** or less. Upon the plaintiff's request, a civil case 
in which the amount in controversy is $1,000*** or less, 
may be designated a "small claims" case and assigned by 
the chief district court judge to a magistrate for hearing. 
Magistrates are empowered to try worthless check crimi- 
nal cases when the value of the check does not exceed 
S500****. In addition, they may accept written appearan- 
ces, waivers of trial, and pleas of guilty in such worthless 
check cases when the amount of the check is $500 or less, 
the offender has made restitution, and the offender has 
fewer than four previous worthless check convictions. 
Magistrates may also accept waviers of appearance and 
pleas of guilty in traffic cases for which a uniform sched- 
ule of fines has been adopted by the Conference of Chief 
District .Judges. Magistrates also conduct initial hearings 
to fix conditions of release for arrested defendants, and 
they are empowered to issue arrest and search warrants. 

Administration 

A chief district judge is appointed for each judicial 
district by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 
among the elected judges in the respective districts. Sub- 
ject to the Chief Justice's general supervision, each chief 
judge exercises administrative supervision and authority 
over the operation of the district courts and magistrates in 
his district. Each chief judge is responsible for: scheduling 
sessions of district court and assigning judges; supervising 
the calendaring of noncriminal cases; assigning matters to 



magistrates; making arrangements for court reporting 
and jury trials in civil cases; and supervising the discharge 
of clerical functions in the district courts. 

The chief district court judges meet in conference at 
least once a year upon the call of the Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court. Among other matters, this annual con- 
ference adopts a uniform schedule of traffic offenses and 
fines for their violation for use by magistrates and clerks 
of court in accepting defendants' waivers of appearance 
and guilty pleas. 



The Conference of Chief District Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1982) 

J. Milton Read, Durham, Chairman 

Hallett S. Ward, Washington, Vice Chairman 



Resources 

Total expenditures for the operation of the district 
courts in 1981-82 amounted to $17,022,936. This is an 
increase of 6.7% over 1980-81 expenditures of 
$15,953,309. Included in this total are expenses of court 
reporters for district courts as well as personnel costs of 
district court judges and magistrates. The 1981-82 total is 
19.2% of the General Fund expenditures for the operation 
of the entire Judicial Departments slight drop of 0.4% in 
the district courts' percentage share of total Judicial 
Department expenditures for the previous fiscal year. 

1981-82 Caseload 

During 1981-82 the statewide total of district court 
filings (civil and criminal) dropped by 6.5% from the 
number reported for 1 980-8 1 . Not including juvenile pro- 
ceedings and mental hospital commitment hearings, the 
filing total in 1 98 1 -82 was 1 ,42 1 ,309, a decrease of 99,5 1 7 
from the 1,520,826 cases reported for 1980-81. The non- 
motor vehicle criminal case category was the only one to 
register an increase in 1981-82 over the previous year. 
This category had a total of 4 1 8, 1 76 cases filed in 1 98 1 -82, 
an increase of 3.8% over the 402,900 cases filed in 1980-8 1 . 
There was a 5.4% decrease in combined civil case filings 
(general civil, domestic relations, small claims, and small 
claim appeals), from a total of 344,483 cases in 1 980-8 1 to 
325,886 in 198 1 -82. The largest reduction in filings was in 
the motor vehicle criminal case category, from the 1980- 
81 total of 773,443 cases to the 1981-82 total of 667,247 
cases, a reduction of 96,196 ( 12.4%) cases. 

More detailed information on district court civil and 
criminal caseloads is contained in Part IV of this Report. 



" I he total number of authorized magistrate positions was reduced to 609 July I, 19X2. 
"♦Increased to 510,000, effective July I, 19X2 
***Increa ,ed from S800 effective October I, 1981. 
••"Increased from 5400. effective October I, 19X1 34 



DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

(As of June 30, 1982) 



District 



1 THOMAS S. WATTS, Elizabeth City 

2 WILLIAM C. GRIFFIN, JR., Williamston 
3A ELI BLOOM, Greenville 

3B WILLIAM D. McFADYEN, New Bern 

4 WILLIAM H. ANDREWS, Jacksonville 

5 W. ALLEN COBB, Wilmington 

6 WE. MURPHREY, III, Jackson 

7 HOWARD S. BONEY, JR., Tarboro 

8 DONALD JACOBS, Goldsboro 

9 DAVID R. WATERS, Oxford 

10 J. RANDOLPH RILEY, Raleigh 

11 JOHN W. TWISDALE, Smithfield 

12 EDWARD W. GRANNIS, JR., Fayetteville 

13 LEE J. GREER, Whiteville 

14 DAN K. EDWARDS, JR., Durham 
I5A HERBERT F. PIERCE, Graham 
I5B WADE BARBER, JR., Pittsboro 

16 JOE FREEMAN BRITT, Lumberton 



District 

17A PHILIP W. ALLEN, Wentworth 

17B TERRY L. COLLINS, Dobson 

18 MICHAEL A. SCHLOSSER, Greensboro 
19A JAMES E. ROBERTS, Concord 
19B GARLAND N. YATES, Asheboro 

20 CARROLL LOWDER, Monroe 

21 DONALD K. TISDALE, Winston-Salem 
H.W. ZIMMERMAN, JR., Lexington 
MICHAEL A. ASHBURN, North Wilkesboro 
CLYDE M. ROBERTS, Marshall 
DONALD E. GREENE, Newton 
PETER S. GILCHRIST, Charlotte 

27A JOSEPH G. BROWN, Gastonia 

27B W. HAMPTON CHILDS, JR., Lincolnton 

28 RONALD C. BROWN, Asheville 

29 M. LEONARD LOWE, Rutherfordton 

30 MARCELLUS BUCHANAN, III, Sylva 



22 
23 
24 
25 
26 



The District Attorneys Association 

(Officers as of June 30, 1982) 

Randolph Riley, Raleigh, President 

Ronald C. Brown, Asheville, Vice President 

William Andrews, Jacksonville, Vice President for 
Legislative Affairs 

John Smith, Wilmington, Secretary-Treasurer 



55 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1981-82 



The District Attorneys 



The State is divided into 35 prosecutorial districts 
which, with one exception, correspond to the 34 judicial 
districts. By act of the 1981 Session of the General 
Assembly, the 3rd Judicial District was divided into two 
separate prosecutorial districts. Prosecutorial Districts 
3 A and 3B. effective October 1, 1981. Prosecutorial Dis- 
trict 3A consists of Pitt County, and Prosecutorial Dis- 
trict 3B is comprised of Craven, Carteret, and Pamlico. 
(G.S. 7A-60) A district attorney is elected by the voters in 
each of the 35 districts for four-year terms. 

Duties 

The district attorney represents the State in all criminal 
actions brought in the superior and district courts in his 
district. In addition to his prosecutorial functions, the 
district attorney is responsible for calendaring criminal 
cases for trial. 



Resources 

Each district attorney may employ on a full-time basis 
the number of assistant district attorneys authorized by 
statute for his district. As of June 30, 1982, a total of 21 1 
assistant district attorneys were authorized for the 35 
prosecutorial districts. The district attorney of District 26 
f Mecklenburg County) had the largest staff ( 19 assistants) 
and the district attorney of District 24 had the smallest 
(two assistants). 

District attorneys are also authorized to employ full- 
time administrative assistants to aid in preparing cases for 
trial and to expedite the criminal court docket. As of June 
30, 1982, there was a total of 32 administrative assistant 
positions established. The district attorney in 19 of the 35 
districts is empowered to employ an investigatorial assist- 
ant who aids in the investigation of cases prior to trial. 

1981-82 Caseload 

A total of 69,607 criminal cases were filed in the super- 
ior courts during 1981-82, consisting of 42,802 felony 
cases and 26.805 misdemeanor appeals from the district 
courts. I he total number of filings in the superior courts 
(felonies and misdemeanor appeals) in the previous year 
was 68.685. The increase of 922 cases in 1981-82 repre- 
sents a 1.39? increase over the 1980-81 total. 

Total criminal cases disposed of by the superior courts 
in 1981-82 equalled 67,183. There were 40,715 felony 
dispositions; the number of misdemeanor appeals dis- 
posed of was 26,468. Compared with 1980-8 1 , total crim- 
inal case dispositions increased by 619 cases over the 
66,564 cases disposed of in that fiscal year. The median 
ages of 1981-82 criminal cases at disposition in the super- 
ior courts were 73 days for felony cases and 62 days for 
misdemeanor appeals. In 1980-81, the median age of fel- 



ony cases at disposition was 71 days, and the median age 
at disposition for misdemeanor appeals was 64 days. 

Dispositions by jury trial in the superior courts, for 
felonies and misdemeanors, totalled 3,793 cases, or 5.6% 
of total criminal case dispositions in the superior courts. 
This was a decrease from jury dispositions of 4,264 (6.4% 
of total dispositions) during the 1980-81 year. As is evi- 
dent, a very small proportion of all criminal cases utilize 
the great proportion of superior court time and resources 
required to handle the criminal caseload. 

By contrast, in 1981-82 a majority of criminal case 
dispositions in superior courts (36,043 or 53.6%) were 
processed on submission of guilty pleas, not requiring a 
trial. This was virtually the same percentage of guilty plea 
dispositions as was reported for 1980-81. 

"Dismissal by district attorney"accounted for a signifi- 
cant percentage of all dispositions during 1981-82: a total 
of 19,572 cases, or 29.1%; of all dispositions. This propor- 
tion is comparable to that recorded for prior years. Many 
of the dismissals involved the situation of two or more 
cases pending against the same defendant, resulting in a 
plea bargain agreement where the defendant pleads guilty 
to some charges in exchange for a dismissal of others. 

There was an increase in the number of speedy trial 
dismissals in superior courts, from 46 cases in 1980-8 1 to 
63 cases in 1981-82. 

The total number of criminal cases disposed of in the 
superior courts was 2,424 cases less than the total number 
of cases filed in 1981-82. Consequently, the number of 
pending criminal cases in superior court increased from 
18,433 at the beginning of the fiscal year to a total at year's 
end of 20,857, an increase of 13.2%,. 

The median age of pending felony cases rose from 81 
days in 1980-81 to 83 days during 1981-82. A similar 
increase was recorded for misdemeanor appeals where the 
median age of cases pending rose from 64 days in 1980-81 
to 69 days in 1981-82. 

In the district courts, a total of 1 ,095,423 criminal cases 
were filed during 1981-82. This total consisted of 677,247 
motor vehicle criminal cases and 418,176 non-motor ve- 
hicle criminal cases. A comparison of total filings in 1981- 
82 with total filings (1,176,343) in 1980-81 reveals a 
decrease in district court criminal filing activity of 80,920 
cases or 6.9%,. The substantial drop in motor vehicle 
criminal case filings was responsible for all oi this 
decrease. Filings in the motor vehicle case category fell by 
96,196 cases, from 773,443 cases in 1980-81 to 677,247 
cases in 1981-82, a decline of 12.4%,. 

As motor vehicle criminal case filings fell in 1981-82, 
filings in the non-motor vehicle criminal case category 
increased by I 5,276 cases (3.8%) from a total ol 402,900 in 
1980-81 to418,176 in 1981-82. 

Total dispositions during 1981-82 in the motor vehicle 
criminal case category amounted to 686,816 cases. As in 
previous years, 56% of this total or 384,294 cases were 



U, 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1981-1982 



The District Attorneys 



disposed of by waiver of appearance and entry of plea of 
guilty before a clerk or magistrate. This substantial 
number of criminal cases did not, of course, require 
action by the district attorneys' offices, and should not be 
regarded as having been a part of the district attorneys' 
"caseload". The remaining 302,522 motor vehicle cases 
were disposed of by means other than a waiver. This 
balance was some 14,931 cases, or 4.7% less than the 
317,453 such dispositions that took place in 1980-81. 
(Due to a change in statistical reporting procedures, the 
clerks of court no longer report motor vehicle criminal 
cases by case file number to the Administrative Office of 
the Courts. Only summary total numbers of filings and 
dispositions are reported weekly. Therefore, it is not pos- 
sible by computer-processing to obtain pending case data 
for the motor vehicle criminal case category.) 

With respect to non-motor vehicle criminal case dispo- 
sitions, a total of 40 1 ,5 1 5 such cases were disposed of in 
1981-82. As with superior court criminal cases, the most 
frequent method of disposition was by entry of guilty 
plea; the next most frequent was dismissal by the district 
attorney. Some 149,1 12 cases, or 37.1%, of the disposi- 
tions were by guilty pleas. An additional 84,827 cases, or 



2 1 . 1 %;, of the total were disposed of by prosecutor dismis- 
sal. Only eight case dispositions were by speedy trial 
dismissals, a substantial decrease from the 20 cases dis- 
missed in this manner in 1980-81. The remaining cases 
were disposed of by waiver ( 14.4%,), trial ( 1 1 .2%), or by 
other means (16.2%). 

During 1981-82, the median age at disposition of non- 
motor vehicle criminal cases was 22 days, compared with 
21 days at disposition in 1980-81. 

Total non-motor vehicle criminal dispositions were 
1 6,66 1 cases less than total filings for the year. Therefore, 
the number of non-motor vehicle criminal cases pending 
at year's end increased to 73,309 cases from the total of 
56,648 recorded at the beginning of the year. This is an 
increase of 29.4% in the number of pending cases. Com- 
pared with the two previous fiscal years, this rate of 
increase was up from the 28%, increase in pending cases 
reported for 1980-81 and the 26.5%, increase recorded for 
1979-80. The median age for pending non-motor vehicle 
cases rose from 54 days in 1980-81 to 61 days in 1981-82. 

Additional information on the criminal caseloads in 
superior and district courts is included in Part IV of this 
Report. 



37 



CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 
(As of June 30, 1982) 



COUNTY 

Alamance 
Alexander 
Alleghain 
\nson 
\she 
Avery 
Beaufort 
Bertie 
Bladen 
Brunswick 
Buncombe 
Burke 
Cabarrus 
Caldwell 
Camden 
Carteret 
Caswell 
Catawba 
Chatham 
Cherokee 
Chowan 
Clay 

Cleveland 
Columbus 
Craven 
Cumberland 
Currituck 
Dare 
Davidson 
Davie- 
Duplin 
Durham 
Edgecombe 
Forsyth 
Franklin 
(jaston 
dates 
Graham 
Granville 
Greene 
Guilford 
Halifax 
Harnett 
Haywood 
Henderson 
Hertford 
Hoke 
Hyde 
Iredell 
.Jackson 



CLERK OF COURT 

Louise B. Wilson 
Martha J. Adams 
.loan B. At wood 
R. Frank Hightower 
Virginia W. Johnson 
Billy .). Vance 
Bessie J. Cherry 
Thomas S. Speight 
Smithy S. Harris 
K. Gregory Bellamy 
J. Ray Elingburg 
Major A. Joines 
Estus B. White 
Geneve I. Tabilio 
Catherine W. McCoy 
Mary Austin 
J. P. Moore 
Eunice W. Mauney 
Janice Oldham 
Rose Mary Crooke 
Lena M. Leary 
Ralph A. Allison 
Ruth S. Dedmon 
Lacy R. Thompson 
Dorothy Pate 
George T. Griffin 
Wiley B. Elliot 
C.S. Meekins 
Hugh Shepherd 
Delores C. Jordan 
John A. Johnson 
James Leo Carr 
Curtis Weaver 
A.E. Blackburn 
Ralph S. Knott 
Betty B. Jenkins 
I obe Daniels, Jr. 
O.W. Hooper, Jr. 
Mary Ruth C. Nelms 
Cleo W. McKeel 
Joseph E. Slate, Jr. 
J.C. Taylor 
Georgia Lee Brown 
William G. Henry 
Thomas H. Thompson 
Richard T. Vann 
Juanita Edmund 
Fenora R. Bright 
Carl G. Smith 
Frank Watson, Jr. 



COUNTY 

Johnston 

Jones 

Lee 

Lenoir 

Lincoln 

Macon 

Madison 

Martin 

McDowell 

Mecklenburg 

Mitchell 

Montgomery 

Moore 

Nash 

New Hanover 

Northampton 

Onslow 

Orange 

Pamlico 

Pasquotank 

Pender 

Perquimans 

Person 

Pitt 

Polk 

Randolph 

Richmond 

Robeson 

Rockingham 

Rowan 

Rutherford 

Sampson 

Scotland 

Stanly 

Stokes 

Surry 

Swain 

I ransylvania 

Tyrrell 

Union 

Vance 

Wake 

Warren 

Washington 

Watauga 

Wayne 

Wilkes 

Wilson 

Yadkin 

Yancey 



CLERK OF COURT 

Will R. Crocker 
Ronald H. Metts 
Sion H. Kelly 
ME. Creech 
Nellie L. Bess 
Lois S. Morris 
James W. Cody 
Mary K. Wynne 
Ruth B. Williams 
Robert M. Blackburn 
Arthur Ray Ledford 
Charles M. Johnson 
Charles M. McLeod 
Rachel M. Joyner 
Louise D. Rehder 
R. Jennings White, Jr. 
Everitte Barbee 
Frank S. Frederick 
Sadie W. Edwards 
Frances W. Thompson 
Frances N. Futch 
W.J. Ward 

W. Thomas Humphries 
Sandra Gaskins 
Judy P. Arledge 
John H. Skeen 
Miriam F. Greene 
Dixie 1. Barrington 
Frankie C. Williams 
Francis Glover 
Joan M. Jenkins 
Charlie I . McCullen 
C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr. 
Joe H. Lowder 
Robert Miller 
David J. Beal 
Harold H. Sandlin 
Marian M. McMahon 
Jessie L. Spencer 
Nola H. McCollum 
Mary Lou M. Barnett 
J. Russell Nipper 
Richard E. Hunter, Jr. 
Louise S. Allen 
John T. Bingham 
Shelton Jordan 
Wayne Roope 
William G. Stewart 
Harold J. Long 
Arnold E. Higgins 



S8 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1981-82 



The Clerks of Superior Court 



A Clerk of Superior Court is elected for a four-year 
term by the voters in each of North Carolina's 100 coun- 
ties. The Clerk has jurisdiction to hear and decide special 
proceedings and is, ex officio, judge of probate, in addi- 
tion to performing record-keeping and administrative 
functions for both the superior and district courts of his 
county. 

Jurisdiction 

The original jurisdiction of the clerk of superior court 
includes the probate of wills and administration of dece- 
dents' estates. It also includes such "special proceedings" 
as adoptions, condemnations of private property under 
the public's right of eminent domain, proceedings to 
establish boundaries, foreclosures, and certain proceed- 
ings to administer the estates of minors and incompetent 
adults. The right of appeal from the clerks'judgments in 
such cases lies to the superior court. 

The clerk of superior court is also empowered to issue 
search warrants and arrest warrants, subpoenas, and 
other process necessary to execute the judgments entered 
in the superior and district courts of his county. For 
certain misdemeanor criminal offenses, the clerk is autho- 
rized to accept defendants' waiver of appearance and plea 
of guilty and to impose a fine in accordance with a sched- 
ule established by the Conference of Chief District Court 
Judges. 

Administration 

The clerk of superior court performs administrative 
duties for both the superior and district courts of his 
county. Among these duties are the maintenance of court 
records and indexes, the control and accounting of funds, 
and the furnishing of information to the Administrative 
Office of the Courts. 

In most counties, the clerk continues to perform certain 
(unctions related to preparation of civil case calendars, 
and in many counties, the clerk's staff assists the district 
attorney in preparing criminal case calendars as well. 
Policy and oversight responsibility for civil case calendar- 
ing is vested in the State's senior resident superior court 
judges and chief district court judges. However, day-to- 
day civil calendar preparation is the clerk's responsibility 
in all districts except those served by trial court 
administrators. 

Resources 

A total of $29,332,086 was expended in 198 1 -82 for the 
operation of the 100 clerk of superior court offices. This is 
an increase of 8.1% over 1980-81 expenditures of 

♦Effective July I, 19X2, both the Judicial Department Budget and De 
operating expenses primarily by the category of Department personnel 
oilices are to be charged to accounts covering district attorney operati 



$27,140,415. In addition to the salaries and benefits of the 
clerks and their staffs, this total includes expenditures for 
jurors' fees, witness expenses, and for the supply, equip- 
ment, postage, telephone, and office expenses for all local 
Judicial Department personnel.* Total expenditures in 
198 1-82 amounted to 33.1% of the General Fund expendi- 
tures for the operations of the entire Judicial Department. 
This percentage share of the total for the Judicial 
Department is about the same as the percentage share for 
operations of the clerks' offices in 1980-81. 

1981-82 Caseload 

During 1 98 1 -82, estate case filings totalled 37,838. This 
was an increase of 2.9% over the 36,753 cases filed in 
1980-8 1 . Estate case dispositions totalled 36,691 cases in 
1981-82, or 8.5%. more than the previous year's total of 
33,830. Filings in 1981-82 exceeded dispositions by 1,147 
cases. This produced an increase of the same amount in 
the number of estate cases pending at the end of the year. 

A total of 3 1 ,673 special proceedings were filed before 
the 100 clerks of superior court in 1981-82. This is an 
increase of 379 cases ( 1 .2%)) over the 3 1 ,294 filings in the 
previous fiscal year. During the year, total special pro- 
ceedings dispositions amounted to 30,783 cases, with a 
resulting increase in the number of cases pending of 4.0%, 
from 21,992 on June 30, 1981 to 22,881 as of June 30, 
1982. 

More detailed information on the estates and special 
proceedings caseloads is included in Part IV of this 
Report. 



Association of Clerks of Superior Court 

(Officers as of June 30, 1982) 

Lousie B. Wilson, Alamance County, President 

George T. Griffin, Cumberland County, 
First Vice President 

Nola H. McCollum, Union County, 
Second Vice President 

Major Joines, Burke County, 
Secretary 

David J. Beal, Surry County, 
Treasurer 



partment accounting procedures were revised to identify various office and 
incurring these costs. For example, any supply expenses for district attorney 
ons. 



U( 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1981-82 
Public Defenders 



During 198 1-S2. there were six public defender offices 
in North Carolina, serving Judicial Districts 3, 12, IS, 26, 
27A. and 28. The public defender for District 28 is 
appointed b\ the senior resident superior court judge 
from recommendations submitted by the district bar; for 
the other districts, the appointment is by the Governor 
from recommendations of the respective district bars. 
Their terms are four years. Each public defender is by 
statute provided a minimum of one full-time assistant 
public defender and additional full-time or part-time 
assistants as may be authorized by the Administrative 
Office oi the Courts. 



Entitlement of Indigents to Counsel 

A person is determined to be indigent if he is found 
"financially unable to secure legal representation". He is 
entitled to State-paid legal representation in: any pro- 
ceeding which may result in (or which seeks relief from) 
confinement; a fine of $500 or more; or extradition to 
another State; a proceeding alleging mental illness or 
incapacity which may result in hospitalization, steriliza- 
tion, or the loss of certain property rights; and juvenile 
proceedings which may result in confinement, transfer to 
superior court for a felony trial, or termination of paren- 
tal rights. 

Most of the cases of State-paid representation of indi- 
gents in the districts with public defenders are handled by 
the public delender"s office. However, the court may in 
certain circumstances— such as existence ol a potential 



conflict of interest assign private counsel to represent an 
indigent defendant. In the other 28 districts, the assigned 
private counsel system is the only one used. 

Resources 

A total of $2,1 15,207 was expended for the operation of 
the six public defenders' offices during 1981-82. This was 
an increase of $357,545 (20.3%) over the 1980-81 total of 
$1,757,662. These expenditures covered the personnel 
and travel costs incurred by these offices. Under the cost 
data system in effect for 1981-82, other operational 
expenses for the public defender offices were not separ- 
ately identified from operating expenses incurred for 
judicial offices within the respective counties. (Effective 
July 1 , 1982, Judicial Department budget and accounting 
procedures have been changed to identify these other 
operational expenses by public defender offices.) 

1981-82 Caseload 

The six public defenders 1 offices handled a total of 
15,197 cases, including both trials and appeals, in 1981- 
82. This represents an increase of 750 cases, or 5.2%, over 
the 14,447 cases that were handled by these offices in 
1980-81. 

Additional information concerning the operation of 
these offices is found in Part 111 of this Annual Report, 



PUBLIC DEFENDERS 

(As of June 30, 1982) 

District 3 

Donald C. Hicks, 111, Greenville 

District 12 

Mary Ann I ally, Fayetteville 

District 18 

Wallace G. Harrelson, Greensboro 

District 26 

fritz Y. Mercer, Jr., Charlotte 

District 27A 

Curtis O. Harris, Gastonia 

District 28 

.1. Robert Hufstader, Asheville 



The Association of Public Defenders 

(Officers as of June 30, 1982) 

Fritz Y. Mercer, Jr., President 
Frederick G. Find, Vice President 
Arthur W. Cooke, Secretary 
Terry Sherill, Treasurer 



ID 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1981-82 



The North Carolina Courts Commission 



(Members as of June 30, 1982) 



Appointed by the Governor 

H. Parks Helms, Charlotte, Chairman 
Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Wade Barber, Jr., Pittsboro 
District Attorney 

Daniel T. Blue, Jr., Raleigh 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

David M. Britt, Raleigh 

Associate Justice, N.C. Supreme Court 

George Kornegay, Mount Olive 

l.T. Valentine, Jr., Nashville 

Louise B. Wilson, Graham 
Clerk of Court 

Appointed by President of the Senate 
(Lieutenant Governor) 

Henson P. Barnes, Goldsboro 
Member, N.C. Senate 

Fielding Clark, II, Hickory 

Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown 
Superior Court Judge 

E. Lawrence Davis, Winston-Salem 

Rebecca B. Hundley, Thomasville 

R.C. Soles, Jr., Tabor City 
Member, N.C. Senate 

Howard F. Twiggs, Raleigh 



Appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives 

Roger W. Bone, Rocky Mount 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Bobby R. Etheridge, Angier 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Robert C. Hunter, Marion 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Harold L. Kennedy, Jr., Winston-Salem 

Ralph S. Knott, Louisburg 
Clerk of Court 

Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids 
District Court Judge 

Marvin D. Musselwhite, Jr., Raleigh 
Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Dennis A. Wicker, Sanford 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Ex-Officio (Non-Voting) 

Robert M. Clay, Raleigh 

N.C. Bar Association Representative 

William K. Davis, Raleigh 
N.C. State Bar Representative 

Franklin E. Freeman, Jr., Raleigh 
Administrative Officer of the Courts 



The North Carolina Courts Commission was estab- 
lished by the 1979 General Assembly "to make continuing 
studies of the structure, organization, jurisdiction, proce- 
dures and personnel of the Judicial Department and of 
the General Court of Justice and to make recommenda- 
tions to the General Assembly for such changes therein as 
will facilitate the administration of justice". Initially, the 
Commission was comprised of 15 voting members, with 
five each appointed by the Governor, the President of the 
Senate (Lt. Governor), and the Speaker of the House. The 
Commission also had three ex officio non-voting members 
as shown above. 



Pursuant to legislation sponsored by the Commission, 
the 1981 General Assembly amended the statutes pertain- 
ing to the Courts Commission, to increase the number of 
voting members from 15 to 23. Under current law, the 
Governorappoints seven voting members, the Lieutenant 
Governor appoints eight voting members and the Speaker 
of the House appoints eight voting members. The non- 
voting ex-officio members remain the same: a representa- 
tive of the North Carolina Bar Associations representa- 
tive of the North Carolina State Bar, and the Administra- 
tive Officer of the Courts. 



41 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1981-82 
The North Carolina Courts Commission 



During 198 1-82, the Courts Commission met in Raleigh 
on several occasions. It also conducted a series o\ public 
hearings at various locations around the State. The pur- 
pose ol these hearings was to give the publican opportuni- 
ty to express their concerns or recommendations about 
the court system. 

The following proposals were sponsored by the North 
Carolina Courts Commission and approved by the 1982 
Session ol the General Assembly: 

• Statutory amendments to the procedure for granting 
exemptions from money judgments. 

• Statutory amendment to increase the civil jurisdic- 
tion o( the district court. 

• Statutory amendment to authorize the preparation 
of jury lists on an annual basis. 

• Statutory amendments to make various technical 
corrections to G.S. Chapter 7A. 

The following items and projects are currently on the 
Commission's agenda for consideration: 

• Costs and fee structure. 



• Handling of traffic cases in the courts. 

• Criminal justice coordinator and/or modifications to 
deal with calendaring abuses in criminal court, along 
with concerns of district attorneys (including admin- 
istrative support and career compensation). 

• Procedures used to select juries at trial. 

• Procedure used to allocate financial resources of 
court system. 

• Indigent defense services, including means to utilize 
services of private attorneys more efficiently and con- 
sideration of public defender expansion. 

• Implementation of constitutional amendment on 
temporary recall of retired judges and justices. 

• Service of process in summary ejectment cases. 

• Revisions in bail law. 

• Implementation of constitutional amendment on 
appeals from Utilities Commission decisions. 

• Conditions of probation. 

• Counsel fees in civil cases. 

• Service of process. 



1 ' 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1981-82 



The Judicial Standards Commission 
(Members as of June 30, 1982) 



Appointed by the Chief Justice 



Court of Appeals Judge Edward B. Clark, Raleigh. 
Chairman (resigned 1 May 19X2) 

Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright, 
Greensboro 

District Court Judge L.T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro 

Appointed by the Governor 

Susan Whittington, Wilkesboro, Secretary 
Veatrice C. Davis, Fayetteville 



Appointed by the Council of the N.C. State Bar 

Jerome B. Clark, Jr., Fayetteville, Vice Chairman 
E.K. Powe, Durham 



Deborah R. Carrington, Executive Secretary 



THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 



The Judicial Standards Commission was established 
by the General Assembly pursuant to a constitutional 
amendment approved by the voters at the general election 
in November 1972. 

Upon recommendation of the Commission, the 
Supreme Court may censure or remove any judge for 
wilful misconduct in office, wilful and persistent failure to 
perform his duties, habitual intemperance, conviction ol 
a crime involving moral turpitude, or conduct prejudicial 
to the administration of justice that brings the judicial 
office into disrepute. In addition, upon recommendation 
of the Commission, the Supreme Court may remove any 
judge for mental or physical incapacity interfering with 
the performance of his duties, which is, or is likely to 
become, permanent. 

Where a recommendation for censure or removal 
involves a justice of the Supreme Court, the recommenda- 
tion and supporting record is filed with the Court of 
Appeals which has and proceeds under the same author- 
ity for censure or removal of a judge. Such a proceeding 
would be heard by the Chief Judge of the Court of 
Appeals and the six judges senior in service, excluding the 
Court of Appeals judge who by law serves as the Chair- 
man of the Judicial Standards Commission. 

In addition to a recommendation of censure or remo- 
val, the Commission also utilizes a disciplinary measure 
known as a reprimand. The reprimand is a mechanism 
administratively developed for dealing with inquiries 
where the conduct involved does not warrant censure or 
removal, but where some action is justified. Since the 
establishment of the Judicial Standards Commission in 
1973, reprimands have been issued in eleven instances 
covering 13 inquiries. 

During the I July 1981 30 June 1982 fiscal year, the 
Judicial Standards Commission met on the following 



dates: 17 July 1981,9 October 1981, 11 December 1981, 
and 2 April 1982. 

A complaint or other information against a judge, 
whether filed with the Commission or initiated by the 
Commission on its own motion, is designated as an 
"Inquiry Concerning a Judge". Sixteen such inquiries 
were pending as of 1 July 1981 , and 64 inquiries were tiled 
during the fiscal year, giving the Commission a total 
workload of 80 inquiries. 

During the fiscal year, the Commission disposed of 58 
inquiries, and 22 inquiries remained pendingat theend of 
the fiscal year. 

The determinations of the Commission regarding the 
58 inquiries disposed of during the fiscal year were as 
follows: 

(1) forty inquiries were determined to involve subject 
matter not within the Commission's jurisdiction; 

(2) six inquiries were determined to involve subject 
matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but 
not warranting further proceedings; 

(3) eight inquiries were determined to warrant no 
further action following completion of five prelimi- 
nary investigations; and 

(4) four inquiries were determined to warrant issuance 
of two reprimands. 



Of the 22 inquiries pending at the end of the the fiscal 
year: 

( 1 ) seventeen inquiries were awaiting initial review by 
the Commission; and 

(2) five inquiries were subject to further action by the 
Commission. 



4?- 



PART III 



COURT RESOURCES 



• Financial 

• Personnel 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Under the State Constitution the operating expenses of 
the Judicial Department (all North Carolina courts) 
"other than compensation to process servers and other 
locally paid non-judicial officers" are required to be paid 
from State funds. It is customary legislative practice for 
the General Assembly to include appropriations for the 
operating expenses of all three branches of State govern- 
ment in a single budget bill, for a two-year period ending 
on June 30 of the odd-numbered years. The budget forthe 
second year of the biennium is generally modified during 
the even-year legislative session. 

Building facilities for the appellate courts are provided 
by State funds, but, by statute, the county governments 
are required to provide from county funds for adequate 
facilities for the trial courts within each of the 100 
counties. 



Appropriations from the State's General Fund for 
operating expenses for all departments and agencies of 
State government, including the Judicial Department, 
totalled $3,339,761,674 for the 1981-82 fiscal year. 
(Appropriations from the Highway Fund and appropria- 
tions from the General Fund for capital improvements 
and debt servicing are not included in this total.) 

The appropriation from the General Fund for the 
operating expenses of the Judicial Department for 1981- 
82 was $89,63 1 ,765. As illustrated in the chart below, this 
General Fund appropriation for the Judicial Department 
comprised 2.7% of the General Fund appropriations for 
the operating expenses of all State agencies and 
departments. 




JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 
APPROPRIATION 

$89,631,765 



2.7% 



47 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Appropriations from the State's general fund for oper- 
ating expenses of the Judicial Department over the past 
five fiscal years are shown in the table below and in the 
graph at the top of the following page. For comparative 
purposes, appropriations from the general fund for 



operating expenses of all State agencies and departments 
(including the Judicial Department) for the last five fiscal 
years are also shown in the table below and in the second 
graph on the following page. 



APPROPRIATIONS FROM GENERAL FIND FOR OPERATING EXPENSES 



Judicial Department 



All State Agencies 



Fiscal Year 




% Increase over 




% Increase over 




Appropriation 


previous year 


Appropriation 


previous year 


1977-1978 


56,319,115 


19.27%, 


2,193,405,714 


11.74%; 


1978-1979 


63,685,178 


13.08% 


2,452,011,095 


11.79%, 


1979-1980 


71,616,057 


12.45%, 


2,761,002,481 


12.60%, 


1980-1981 


82,929,174 


15.80% 


3,140,949,832 


13.76% 


1981-1982 


89,631,765 


8.08% 


3,339,761,674 


6.33% 



AVERAGE ANNUAL 
INCREASE, 1977-1982 



13.74% 



11.24%, 



During the past decade, including the five-year period 
covered by the above table, inflation has been a signifi- 
cant factor in the national economy. For example, during 
1 979-80 according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the 
average person spent for goods and services more than 
twice the amount required tor the same goods and ser- 
vices in 1967. 

The greatest percentage increase in Judicial Depart- 
ment appropriations during the last five years was for the 



1977-78 fiscal year. The increase for that year was due in 
large measure to a significant increase in the number of 
superior court judges (20%,) and an increase in the number 
of assistant district attorneys ( 18%). 

Fiscal year 1981-82 shows the smallest percentage 
increase in Judicial Department appropriations during 
the five-year period. This decline in the percentage of 
increase is consistent with the decline in the percentage of 
increase for all State government agencies. 



C-: 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



$90,000,000 
80,000,000 
70,000,000 
60,000,000 
50,000,000 
40,000,000 
30,000,000 
20,000,000 
10,000,000 




General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of 
The Judicial Department, 1977-78 - 1981-82 



$89,631,765 




1977-78 



1978-79 



1979-80 



1980-81 



1981-82 



53,500,000,000 

S3, 250,000,000 

53,000,000,000 

2,750,000,000 

2,500,000,000 

2,250,000,000 

2,000,000,000 

1,750,000,000 

1,500,000,000 

1,250,000,000 

1 ,000,000,000 

750,000,000 

500,000,000 

250,000,000 





General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of All 
State Agencies and Departments, 1977-78 — 1981-82 

$3,339,761,674 





















J).', 


14U,V4V,0 






$2, 


761,002,- 


181 






$2,452,011,095 








$2,193,405,714 





























































































































1977-78 



1978-79 



1979-80 



980-81 



1981-82 



49 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES 
July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 



General Fund expenditures, rounded to the nearest 
dollar, lor operating expenses of the Judicial Department 
during the 1981-82 fiscal year totalled $88,531,892, 
di\ ided among the major budget classifications as shown 



below. Expenditures for LEAA-funded projects in the 
Judicial Department totalled $1,4 17, 838, for a grand total 
o\ $89,949,730 in Judicial Department expenditures. 



Supreme Court 
Court o\ Appeals 
Superior Courts 

(This classification includes judges, district 

attorneys, assistant district attorneys, court 

reporters, and staff personnel.) 
District Courts 

( I h is classification includes judges, 

magistrates, and court reporters.) 
Clerks of Superior Court 

(This classification includes all 100 clerks 

and their staffs, juror fees, witness fees, 

and such support services as supplies, 

postage, telephone expenses, and office 

equipment for all local Judicial Department 

personnel.) 
Juvenile Probation and Aftercare 
legal Representation for Indigents 

Assigned private counsel ($8,173,393) 

Public defenders ($2,1 15,207) 

Special counsel at mental hospitals ($145,31 1) 

Support services (transcripts, records, briefs) ($354,613) 

Appellate Defender Services ($245,126) 
Administrative Office of the Courts 
Judicial Council 
Judicial Standards Commission 

rotal General Fund Expenditures 
LEAA-Funded Projects 

rOTAI 





%of 


Amount 


Total 


$ 1,365,955 


1 5 


1,945,081 


2.2 


17,618,583 


19.9 



17,022,936 
29,332,086 



7,026,192 
1,033,650 



3,105,809 
-0- 
81,600 

$88,531,892 
1,417,838 

$89,949,730 



19.2 



33. 1 



7.9 
12.5 



3.6 



100.0 



50 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 
Expenditures, July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 



DISTRICT COURTS 

19.2':, 



ADMINISIRA1 IVE OFFICE 
OF I HI COURTS 

3 6' , 



CI ERK.S 
OF 

SUPERIOR 
COUR1 
33. 1C, 




SUPERIOR COUP IS 
19.9", 



COURI OF APPEAI S 2 2' 
SUPREME COURI IV, 



EGA! RIPRESENI A I ION 
EOR INDIGENTS 12.5'', 

IUDICIAI STANDARDS COMMISSION I' 
UVENII I PROBA'I ION AND AE I ER( ARE 7 9', 



As the chart illustrates, the bulk of Judicial Depart- 
ment expenditures goes for operation of the State's trial 
courts. Operation of the superior courts took 19.1% of 
total expenditures; this category includes expenditures 
for district attorneys and their staffs as well as superior 
court judges and court reporters. Operation of the district 
courts (including magistrates, judges and court reporters) 
took 19.2% of the total. An additional 33.1% went to 
operate the offices for the 100 clerks of superior court, to 



pay jurors' and witnesses' tees and to provide oil ice 
equipment and supplies and postage and telephone ser- 
vice for all Judicial Department personnel at the local 
level. 

The total General Fund expenditures of $88,531,892 
for 1981-82 represents a 8.9% increase over expenditures 
of $8 1 ,278,550 in 1980-8 1 , an increase in keeping with the 
trend in recent years, as illustrated in the chart below. 



General Fund Expenditures For The Judicial Department 
Fiscal Years 1977-78 - 1981-82 



$90,000,000 
$80,000,000 
$70,000,000 
$60,000,000 
$50,000,000 
$40,000,000 
$30,000,000 
$20,000,000 
$10,000,000 




$88,531,892 



$81,278,550 




1977-78 



1978-79 



I979-X0 



980-81 



1981-82 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Department Receipts 
July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 



Receipts for the Judicial Department in the 1 l )S 1 -N2 
fiscal year totalled $53,493,059.90. The several sources of 
these receipts are shown in the table below. As in the 
pre\ ious years, the major source of receipts is the assess- 
ment of "court costs" in superior and district courts, paid 
b\ litigants in accordance with the schedule of costs and 
tecs set out in Ci.S. 7A-304 el \eq.; these payments 



constituted 60.10% of the total receipts during 1980-81. 
Fines and forfeitures made up 37.87% of the total. 
Receipts in the remaining categories Supreme Court 
and Court o\ Appeals filing fees, sales of Supreme Court 
and Court of Appeals Reports and payments on indigent 
representation judgements -- made up less than three 
percent of the total. 



Source of Receipts 

Supreme Court Fees 
Court of Appeals Fees 
Superior and District 

Court Costs 
lines and Forfeitures 
Sales of Appellate 

Division Reports 
Pa\ ments on Indigent 

Representation 

Judgements 
1 otal 



Amount 

$ 20,575.76 
33.520.22 

32,151,729.39 
20,256,233.59 

122,007.38 



908,993.56 
$53,493,059.90 



%of 
Total 

•04%. 
.06%, 

60.10%; 

37.87% 
.23% 



1 .70%, 
100.00%, 



This total of $53,493,059.90 is an increase of 3.04% over 
total 1 980-8 1 receipts of $5 1 ,9 1 3,089.25. The graph below 



illustrates increases in recent years in total Judicial 
Department receipts. 



Judicial Department Receipts, 1977-78 — 1981-82 



00.000 

- 0.000.000 

■if). 0<)0 

00.000 

10.000 

00.000 





.S4x.0M).9l( 



S4 l UI 1,0X0.74 



$51. 9 13.089. 25 



$53,493,059.90 




I<v77-7X 



l'>7X-79 



1979-80 



1980-81 



I9XI-X2 



52 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Distribution Of Judicial Department Receipts 



As required by the State Constitution, fines, penal- 
ties and forfeitures collected by the courts in criminal 
cases are distributed to the respective counties in which 
the cases are tried. These funds must be used by the 
counties for the support of the public schools. 

A uniform schedule of court costs for civil and crimi- 
nal cases, comprised o\' a variety of fees, is set by 
statute for cases filed in the superior and district courts. 
Statutes prescribe the distribution of these fees and 
provide that certain fees shall be devoted to specific 
uses. For example, a facilities fee is included in court 
costs when costs are assessed, and this fee is paid over 
to the respective county or municipality which pro- 
vided the facility used in the case. These fees must be 
utilized by the counties and municipalities to provide 
and maintain courtrooms and related judicial facilities. 

Officer Fees (for arrest or service of process) are in- 
cluded, where applicable, in the costs of each case filed 
in the trial courts. If a municipal officer performed 
these services in a case, the fee is paid over to the 
respective municipality. Otherwise, all officer fees are 
paid to the respective counties in which the cases are 
filed. 



Remitted to State Treasurer 

Supreme Court Fees 

Court of Appeals Fees 

Sales of Appellate Division Reports 

Payments on Indigent Representation Judgments 

Law Enforcement Officers Benefit and 

Retirement Fund Fees 
Other Superior and District Court Fees 

Total to State Treasurer 

Distributed to Counties 

Fines and Forfeitures 
Judicial Facilities Fees 
Officer Fees 
Jail Fees 

Total to Counties 

Distributed to Municipalities 

Judicial Facilities Fees 
Officer Fees 
Jail Fees 

Total to Municipalities 



A jail fee is included in the costs of each case where 
applicable; and these fees are distributed to the 
respective county or municipality whose facilities were 
used. Most jail facilities in the Stale arc provided by 
the counties. 

A fee for the Law Enforcement Officers Benefit and 
Retirement Fund is included as a part of court costs 
when costs are assessed in a criminal case. As required 
by statute, the Judicial Department remits these fees to 
the State Treasurer, for deposit in the Law Enforce- 
ment Officers Benefit, and Retirement Fund. 

Except as indicated, all superior and district court 
costs collected by the Judicial Department are paid into 
the State's General Fund. 

When private counsel or a public defender is as- 
signed to represent an indigent defendant in a criminal 
case the trial judge sets the money value for the services 
rendered. If the defendant is convicted, a judgment lien 
is entered against him for such amount. Collections on 
these judgments are paid into the State's General Fund, 
as are appellate court fees and proceeds from the sales 
of appellate division reports. 





%of 


Amount 


Total 


20,575.76 


.04% 


33,520.22 


.06% 


122,007.38 


.23% 


908,993.56 


1.70% 


2,210,582.36 


4.13% 


19,443,593.75 


36.35%, 


22,739,273.03 


42.51% 


20,256,233.59 


37.87% 


5,653,760.70 


10.57% 


2,848,209.93 


5.32% 


532,035.03 


.99% 


29,290,239.25 


54.75% 


281,554.00 


.53% 


1,171,065.12 


2.19% 


10,928.50 


.02% 


1,463,547.62 


2.74% 



GRAND TOTAL 



$53,493,059.90 



100.00% 



53 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Amounts of Fees, Fines and Forfeitures Collected by the Courts and 

Distributed to Counties and Municipalities* 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 



Distributed to Counties 



Distributed to Municipalities 





Facility 


Officer 


lail 


Fines and 


Facility 


Officer 


Jail 






Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Forfeitures 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Total 


Mamancc 


S 10 1.660. OS S 


54,440.00 $ 11.274.00 $ 366,459.80 


$ -0- 


$ 21,261.00 


$ -0- $ 


555,094.88 


Mexander 


14.848.00 


8.450.00 


2,190.00 


60,894.91 


-0- 


120.00 


-0- 


86,502.91 


Alleghanv 


8.286.00 


3.274.42 


1 ,42 1 .00 


25,704.96 





816.00 


-0- 


39,502.38 


\llsiMl 


28.345.00 


14,224.00 


1,893.00 


64,419.00 


-0- 


1,734.00 


0- 


1 10,615.00 


Ashe 


14.771.00 


12,406.00 


1,231.00 


69.797.00 


■0- 


202.00 





98,407.00 


\\ ei \ 


1 1.474.00 


8,639.00 


1.500.00 


64,016.31 


-0- 


314.00 


0- 


85,943.31 


Beaut nit 


43.262 III 


32,456.00 


5,831.00 


156,965.55 


-0- 


6,857.00 





245,371.65 


Bertie 


20,065.00 


18,850.99 


2.555.00 


62,232.93 


-0- 


852.00 


■0- 


104,555.92 


Bladen 


34.582.00 


31,988.68 


1,713.00 


122,573.04 


4,398.00 


937.00 


-0- 


196,191.72 


Brunsw ick 


31,080.00 


18,826.00 


2,779.76 


212,607.89 


2,847.00 


788.00 


(1 


268,928.65 


Buncombe 


164,583.50 


96,312.00 


10,693.50 


628,557.96 


-0- 


38,278.00 


-0- 


938,424.96 


Burke 


71.965.00 


34,148.00 


2,375.00 


221,552.79 


-0- 


8,492.00 


0- 


338,532.79 


Cabarrus 


89,138.00 


64.305.18 


8,553.00 


316,529.67 


-0- 


9,896.00 





488,421.85 


Caldwell 


53,160.00 


17,742.00 


3,859.00 


156.989.97 


0- 


6,787.00 





238,537.97 


( .muicn 


4.392.00 


3.388.00 


595.00 


21,923.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


30,298.00 


Carteret 


44.590.00 


27,047.00 


2,209.93 


206,750.35 


0- 


8,256.00 


-0- 


293,853.28 


Caswell 


15.424.50 


14,202.00 


1,440.00 


60,302.61 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


91,369.1 1 


( atav. ha 


44,790.00 


26,01 1.00 


7,170.00 


289,196.68 


51,679.00 


22,928.00 


1,630.00 


443,404.68 


( hatham 


18,974.00 


19,621.00 


1.022.00 


81.638.32 


6,661.00 


1,022.00 


165.00 


129,103.32 


Cherokee 


14,048.00 


10,689.00 


1,475.00 


65,531.00 


-0- 


1,324.00 


115.00 


93,182.00 


Chowan 


14.776.25 


9,292.00 


1,817.00 


46,430.32 





3,019.00 


-0- 


75,334.57 


C"la\ 


3,461.00 


2,637.00 


1,569.00 


20,003.00 


■0 


-0- 





27,670.00 


( leveland 


63,058.45 


23,997.90 


8,176.00 


171,792.39 


-0- 


8,008.00 


-0- 


275,032.74 


Columbus 


55.330.00 


50,737.00 


5,244.00 


1X9,444.04 


4,021.00 


3,624.00 


295.00 


308,695.04 


( raven 


80,070.00 


31,214.00 


7.164.00 


340,216.24 


-0- 


14.797.00 


-0- 


473,461.24 


Cumberland 


256,239.00 


86,845.34 


30,622.34 


952,718.65 


0- 


61,024.00 


-0- 


1,387,449.33 


( urrituck 


15,135.00 


12,623.43 


890.00 


70,136.00 





-0- 


-0- 


98,784.43 


Dan 


30,773.00 


16,798.25 


3,309.00 


199,763.30 


-0- 


5,926.00 


-0- 


256,569.55 


I )a\ idson 


77.656.80 


58,377.67 


7,969.29 


281,410.75 


12,532.00 


7,970.00 





445,916.51 


Davie 


20,582.00 


14,972.00 


1,438.00 


60,808.00 


-0- 


532.00 


-0- 


98.332.00 


Duplin 


36,301.00 


15.632.00 


3.854.00 


172,734.61 


-0 


1,906.00 


1,006.50 


231,434.1 1 


I )ui ham 


180,083 00 


63,702.00 


5,499.54 


309,451.44 


-0- 


48,124.00 


-0- 


606,859.98 


1 dgecombe 


42,159.00 


52,739 00 


7,766.50 


125,763.92 


24,903.00 


9,577.00 


755.00 


263,663.42 


hoi mIi 


279,929.00 


38,437.00 


27,070.66 


670,853.17 


3,852.00 


1 10,895.00 


-0- 


1,131,036.83 


1 ranklin 


27.915.00 


15,429.00 


3.488.00 


96.442.71 


-0- 


440.00 


10.00 


143,724.71 


1 


128,212.00 


87,652.00 


1 1,875.98 


443,131.86 


-0- 


14,732.00 


-0- 


685,603.84 




8,583.00 


6,006.00 


796.00 


40,090.00 


-0- 


60.00 





55,535.00 




3.628.00 


2,772.00 


420.00 


12,363.00 


-0- 


40.00 


-0- 


19,223.00 


' 


36.064 00 


16,081.50 


5,094.00 


120,173.22 


64.00 


5,556.00 


190.00 


183,222.72 


; 


1 1,140 00 


8,1 17.00 


2.453.00 


65,248.15 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


86,958.15 


(juilford 


362,483 31 


60,408 00 


17,4.36.00 


1,075,734.00 


-0- 


127,606.00 


-0- 


1,643,667.31 




56,071.00 


42,524.00 


1 1,366.10 


260,612.54 


6,041.00 


1 1,426.00 


360.00 


388,400.64 


Mai m ii 


40,806 00 


22,398.89 


5,078.00 


184,721.18 


10,274.00 


4,448.00 


800.00 


268,526.07 


1 l,r. Wi ii id 


36,145.50 


26,509 00 


871.00 


174,623.50 


2,527.00 


3,071.00 


-0- 


243,747.00 


1 1 ■ : , < 1 i i 1 1 1 


50.880.00 


27.367.00 


7,650.97 


258,827.00 


-0- 


4,864.00 


-0 


349,588.97 


11 rtford 


29.928.00 


19,527.50 


3,032.00 


83,539.70 





2,044.00 


-0- 


138,071.20 




20,051.00 


10,575.15 


3,644.97 


91,005.25 


•0 


1,632.00 





126,908.37 


Hyde 


4 939 00 


3,930.00 


235.00 


18,509.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


27,613.00 


Iredell 


65,545 00 


33,244.00 


1,782.95 


239,632.03 


14,637.00 


10,969.00 


442.00 


366,251.98 



' I lit} and jail fees are distributed to the respective counties and municipalities which furnished the facilities. II the officer who 
• ;i i ni set .'() the process was employed by a municipality, the officer fee is distributed to the municipality; otherwise 
all offi are distributed to the respective counties. By provision oi the State Constitution, lines and forfeitures collected by 

ourts within a county are distributed to that county lor support ol the public schools. 



54 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Amounts of Fees, Fines and Forfeitures Collected by the Courts and 

Distributed to Counties and Municipalities* 

July 1,1981 —June 30, 1982 



Distributed to Counties 



Distributed to Municipalities 





Facility 


Officer 


Jail 


Fines and 


Facility 


Officer 


Jail 






Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Forfeitures 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Total 


Jackson 


$ 15,893.00 


$ 12,124.89 


$ 1,638.00 


$ 84,033.70 3 


; -o- 


$ -0- 


$ -0- 


$ 113,689.59 


Johnston 


57,419.00 


38,592.60 


10,306.97 


261,867.12 


12,542.50 


8,347.00 


490.00 


389.565.19 


Jones 


11,581.00 


7.567.00 


640.00 


44,556.00 


-0- 


1,098.00 


-0- 


65,442.00 


Lee 


41,944.00 


24,190.00 


8,910.00 


106,239.00 


-0- 


8,099.00 


-0- 


189,382.00 


Lenoir 


67,381.00 


23,039.30 


6,618.00 


207,430.56 


384.00 


10,038.00 


-0- 


314,890.86 


Lincoln 


28,592.00 


21,106.00 


1,550.00 


88,464.28 


-0- 


1,502.00 


-0- 


141,214.28 


Macon 


18,582.00 


14,465.96 


43 1 .00 


111,134.70 


-0- 


146.00 


-0- 


144,759.66 


Madison 


6,514.00 


4,970.00 


990.00 


25,534.00 


-0- 


32.00 


-0- 


38,040.00 


Martin 


26,439.00 


20,058.00 


1,280.00 


90,095.58 


-0- 


2,070.00 


-0 


139,942.58 


McDowell 


29,952.00 


20,216.00 


2,319.00 


149,744.50 


-0- 


1,642.00 


-0- 


203,873.50 


Mecklenburg 


446,449.50 


184,454.85 


3 1 .00 


1,118,304.40 


-0- 


142,284.98 


-0- 


1,891,524.73 


Mitchell 


6,810.00 


4,866.00 


775.00 


31,501.14 


-0- 


724.00 


-0- 


44.676.14 


Montgomery 


34.132.00 


30,258.47 


3,378.00 


82,599.00 


-0- 


761.00 


-0- 


151,128.47 


Moore 


51,862.00 


34,901.00 


1,925.00 


195,078.20 


4,744.00 


9,570.00 


270.00 


298,350.20 


Nash 


47,459.00 


55,168.48 


9,222.00 


239,995.50 


32,027.00 


10,419.00 


873.00 


395,163.98 


New Hanover 


128,896.60 


38,564.30 


14,877.55 


551,316.05 


-0- 


30,836.00 


170.00 


764,660.50 


Northampton 


25,393.00 


20,714.00 


2,729.00 


92,642.77 


-0- 


1,432.00 


-0- 


142,910.77 


Onslow 


100,429.60 


66,948.00 


30,154.37 


525,714.00 


-0- 


15,265.00 


-0- 


738,510.97 


Orange 


46,714.00 


28,903.00 


2,278.75 


205,949.86 


16,515.00 


14,836.00 


619.00 


315,815.61 


Pamlico 


7,703.00 


5,864.00 


685.00 


23,872.59 


-0- 


36.00 


20.00 


38,180.59 


Pasquotank 


27,411.00 


11,035.00 


3,189.00 


127,717.62 


-0- 


8.332.00 


-0- 


177,684.62 


Pender 


22,662.00 


15,876.44 


2,908.00 


125,061.54 


-0- 


956.00 


-0- 


167,463.98 


Perquimans 


9,201.00 


6,032.00 


1,150.00 


43,311.72 


-0- 


1,147.00 


-0- 


60,841.72 


Person 


24,197.00 


11,458.00 


2,801.00 


100,191.62 


432.50 


1,921.14 


-0- 


141,001.26 


Pitt 


82,455.20 


26,411.00 


5,269.00 


277,118.59 


6,519.00 


22,277.00 


620.00 


420,669.79 


Polk 


11,091.00 


8,682.00 


1 ,450.00 


83,539.50 


-0- 


472.00 


-0- 


105,234.50 


Randolph 


64,963.44 


55,895.42 


3,497.00 


189,867.00 


1,141.00 


8,862.00 


()- 


324,225.86 


Richmond 


37,346.00 


19,945.00 


3,427.00 


114,945.43 


-0- 


2.724.00 


-0- 


178,387.43 


Robeson 


96,269.50 


59.137.00 


17,818.40 


546,325.21 


32,559.50 


21,012.00 


1,375.00 


774.496.61 


Rockingham 


61,977.50 


38,662.00 


8,920.00 


272.473.50 


21,446.50 


20,801.00 


1 10.00 


424,390.50 


Rowan 


90,547.00 


58,308.85 


9,424.00 


303,122.39 


-0- 


20,648.00 


-0- 


482,050.24 


Rutherford 


39,960.37 


24,095.00 


7,486.00 


174,927.50 


-0- 


4.972.00 


-0- 


251,440.87 


Sampson 


66,309.00 


52,611.00 


9,055.25 


248,779.15 


() 


1 ,946.00 


() 


378,700.40 


Scotland 


35,789.50 


23,139.00 


3,829.00 


1 10,945.17 


-0- 


4,924.00 


-0- 


178,626.67 


Stanly 


43,815.00 


13,810.00 


4,155.00 


151,430.18 


-li 


6.796.00 


-0- 


220,006.18 


Stokes 


22,649.50 


12,769.00 


1,210.00 


75.943.25 


-0- 


250.00 


-0- 


112,821.75 


Surry 


63,395.00 


54,375.14 


4,483.00 


258,003.21 


915.00 


6,660.00 


425.00 


388,256.35 


Swain 


7,634.00 


4,311.00 


1,885.00 


31.426.50 


-0- 


294.00 


-0- 


45,550.50 


Transylvania 


16,526.00 


13,992.45 


5,638.00 


65,011.00 


-0- 


2,150.00 


-0- 


103,317.45 


Tyrrell 


4,285.00 


3,272.00 


145.00 


15,293.56 





-0- 


-0 


22,995.56 


Union 


52,156.00 


36,547.00 


8,627.00 


159,299.04 





6,981.00 


-0- 


263,610.04 


Vance 


44,113.00 


20,035.00 


3,287.00 


132,015.23 


-0- 


5,239.00 


-0- 


204,689.23 


Wake 


359,976.00 


76,024.42 


30,707.70 


1,173,993.47 


5,383.00 


132,868.00 


168.00 


1.779,120.59 


Warren 


18,952.00 


13,816.50 


2,298.00 


67,885.88 


-0- 


212.00 


-0- 


103,164.38 


Washington 


13,342.00 


10,583.00 


1,484.00 


36,362.54 


-0- 


1,022.00 


-0- 


62,793.54 


Watauga 


23,452.00 


14,968.00 


3,351.00 


116,846.62 


-0- 


4,024.00 


-0- 


162,641.62 


Wayne 


86,329.50 


29,066.00 


4,138.00 


262,200.28 


2,509.00 


14,206.00 


20.00 


398,468.78 


Wilkes 


57,929.00 


33,071.00 


8,211.55 


274,307.06 


-0- 


1,022.00 


-0- 


374,540.61 


Wilson 


62,880.00 


39,819.96 


5,882.00 


240,65 1 .05 


-0- 


15,403.00 


-0- 


364,636.01 


Yadkin 


25,982.00 


19,728.00 


4,639.00 


150,136.12 


-0 


254.00 


-0- 


200,739.12 


Yancey 


7,637.00 


6,196.00 


1,538.00 


60,207.00 


-0- 


398.00 


-0- 


75,976.00 


State Totals 


$5,653,760.70 


$2,848,209.93 


$532,035.03 5 


»20,256,233.59 $ 


281,554.00 ! 


51,171,065.12 S 


>10,928.50 J 


i30,753,786.87 



55 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 
July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 



1 he State pro\ ides legal counsel for indigent persons in 
a variet) of actions and proceedings, as specified in the 
North Carolina General Statutes. Sections 7 A-450 et seq. 

1 hese include criminal proceedings, judicial hospitaliza- 
tion proceedings, juvenile proceedings which may result 
in commitment to an institution or transfer to superior 
court for trial as an adult, legal representation for indi- 
gents may be by assignment of private counsel, by 
assignment ot special public counsel (involving mental 
hospital commitments), or by assignment oi a public 
defender. 

Six o\ North Carolina's judicial districts have an office 
ot public defender: Districts 3. 12, IX, 26, 27 A, and 28. 

I he other 28 districts utilize only assignments of private 
counsel. Private counsel may also be assigned in the six 
districts which have a public defender in the event of a 
conflict of interests involving the public defender's office 
and the indigent and in the event of unusual circum- 
stances when, in the opinion of the court, the proper 
administration of justice requires the assignment of pri- 
vate counsel rather than the public defender in those 
cases. 

The Appellate Defender Office began operation as a 
State-tunded program on October 1, 19X1. (Prior to 
October 1 . I9X I , appellate defender services were funded 
by a one-year lederal grant.) Pursuant to assignments 
made by trial court judges, it is the responsibility of the 
Appellate Defender and his stall to provide criminal 
defense appellate services to indigent persons who are 
appealling their convictions to either the Supreme Court 
or the Court ol Appeals. Under the general supervision of 
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Appellate 
Defender is required by statute ((i.S. 7A-47X) to accept 
only that number ot appeal assignments which will ensure 



the quality of appellate services provided. The case and 
cost data reported below reflect the activity of this office 
in both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals for the 
nine-month period following October 1, 19X1, and the 
reported case data represents those cases disposed of 
during that time. 

In addition, the State provides a full-time special coun- 
sel at each of the State's four mental hospitals, to repres- 
ent patients in commitment or recommitment hearings 
before a district court judge. Under North Carolina law, 
each patient committed to a mental hospital is entitled to 
a judicial hearing (before a district court judge) within 90 
days after the initial commitment, a further hearing 
within 1X0 days after the initial commitment, and there- 
after a hearing once each year during the continuance of 
an involuntary commitment. 

Finally, the State provides a guardian ad litem for 
children alleged to be neglected in juvenile petitions 
unless the court finds that the child is not in need of and 
cannot benefit from such representation. By statute, the 
guardian ad litem is a licensed attorney and is compen- 
sated for his services in the same way as compensation is 
provided for representation of an indigent person. 

The cost of the entire program of indigent representa- 
tion, rounded to the nearest dollar, was$l 1,033,650 in the 
1981-82 fiscal year, compared to $9,X6I,9I9 in the 1980- 
XI fiscal year, an increase of 11.9%. The total amount 
expended for representation of indigents was 12.5% of 
total Judicial Department expenditures in the 1 98 1 -82 
fiscal year. 

following is a summary of case and cost data for 
representation of indigents for the fiscal year, July 1, 1981 
through June 30, 19X2. 



Assigned Private Counsel 

Adult cases (other than capital) 
Capital cases 
Juvenile cases 

Guardian ad litem for juveniles 
Appellate defender project (Prior to 10/1/81) 
Totals 

Public Defender Offices 

District 3 

District 12 
District IX 
District 26 
District 27A 
District 2X 
Totals 



Number 




Total 


A 


average 


of Cases 




Cost 


Per Case 


34,665 


S 


6,463,254 


s 


1X6.45 


303 




517,846 


1 


,709.06 


5,631 




525,443 




93.31 


4,455 




654,03 1 




146.81 


39 




12,XI9 




328.69 


45,093 


$ 


8,173,393 


$ 


181.26 


1 ,399 


s 


316,376 


$ 


226.14 


2,339 




390,1X7 




166.82 


3,06X 




475,230 




154.90 


5,145 




507,700 




98.68 


1 ,636 




238,692 




145.90 


1,610 




1X7,022 




116.16 


15,197 


s 


2,115,207 


$ 


139.19 



56 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 
1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 



Appellate Defender Office 

Special counsel at mental hospitals 
Transcripts, records and briefs 
Medical examinations 
Expert witness fees 

GRAND TOTAL 



Number 


Total 


Average 


of Cases 


Cost 


Per Case 


139 


$ 245,126 

$ 145,311 

309,303 

25,310 

20,000 

$11,033,650 


$1,763.50 



57 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Special Counsel at Mental Hospitals 



rhe total cost of providing special counsel at each of 
the State's tour mental hospitals, to represent patients 
in commitment or recommitment hearings, was $145,31 1 
for the 1981-82 fiscal year. There were a total of 10,426 
hearings held during the year, for an average cost per 
hearing of S13.94. 



The following presents data on the hearings held at 
each of the mental hospitals in 1981-82. The total 
number of hearings held in 1981-82 represents a 
decrease of 1.9%) compared to the 10,627 hearings held 
in 1980-81. 



Broughton Cherry 



Initial Hearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 731 

Commitment to outpatient clinic 492 

Discharge 2,001 

Totals 3,224 

First Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 78 

Commitment to outpatient clinic 13 

Discharge 71 

Totals 162 

Second or Subsequent Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 124 

Commitment to outpatient clinic 

Discharge 16 

Totals 140 

Modification of Prior Order Hearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 5 

Commitment to outpatient clinic 58 

Discharge I I 

Totals 74 

Total Hearings or Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 93K 

Commitment to outpatient clinic 563 

Discharge 2,099 

Crand Totals 3,600 

The table that begins on the following page compares 
the number of assigned private counsel cases and 
expenditures in each county and judicial district for lis- 
cal years 1980-81 and 19X1-82. There was a statewide 
increase in the total number of assigned private counsel 
eases from 42,528 cases in 19X0-81 to 45,054 cases in 
1981-82. an increase of 5.9%. Expenditures for these 
defense services increased by 8.7% from the $7,508,808 
spent in 1980-81 to $8,160,574 in 1981-82. 

The largest district increase in the number of assigned 
counsel cases occurred in District 26, which had a total 



900 

106 

1,258 

2,264 



I') I 

4 

89 

284 



268 


IX 

286 



Dorothea 


John 




Dix 


Umstead 


Totals 


576 


1,165 


3,372 


19 


140 


757 


484 


560 


4,303 


1,079 


1,865 


8,432 


126 


250 


645 


2 


2 


21 


22 


44 


226 


150 


296 


892 


238 


290 


920 











7 


8 


49 


245 


298 


969 


(» 


40 


4') 


3 





61 





4 


23 


'i 


44 


133 


940 


1 ,745 


4,986 


24 


142 


839 


513 


616 


4,601 


1,477 


2,503 


10,426 



12 



1 ,363 

110 

1 ,373 

2,846 



of 1,503 cases in 1980-81 as compared to 3,056 cases in 
1981-82, an increase of 103.3%. District 3 showed the 
largest decrease in the number of such cases from 1,366 
in 1980-81 to 393 in 1981-82, a reduction of 71.2%,. 

The largest district increase in the amount expended 
for assigned private counsel cases was also in District 
26 where expenditures went from $338,119 in 1980-81 
to $621,245 in 1981-82, an increase of 83.7%, On the 
other hand, assigned counsel case costs decreased by 
53.7%, in District 18 from $411,534 in 1980-81 to 
$190,463 in 1 98 I -X 2. 



58 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel — Numbers of Cases and Expenditures* 
Fiscal Years 1980-81 and 1981-82 





Number of Cases 


% Increase 




Expendit 


ures 




















% Increase 




1980-81 


1981-82 


or (Decrease) 


1980-81 


1981-82 


or (Decrease) 


District I 


















Camden 


1') 


27 


42.1 


$ 


3,239 


$ 


4,845 


49.6 


Chowan 


114 


135 


18.4 




21,696 




24,804 


14.3 


Currituck 


77 


91 


18.2 




14,614 




2 1 ,0 1 1 


43.8 


Dare 


90 


100 


III 




19,356 




23,476 


21.3 


Gates 


24 


27 


12.5 




4,127 




6,057 


46.8 


Pasquotank 


312 


316 


1.3 




48,852 




59,250 


21.3 


Perquimans 


64 


76 


18.7 




13,672 




17,800 


30.2 


District Totals 


700 


772 


10.3 


$ 


125,556 


S 


157,243 


25.2 


District 2 


















Beaufort 


278 


299 


7.5 


$ 


49,226 


S 


50,488 


2.6 


Hyde 


26 


31 


19.2 




4,599 




3,541 


(23.0) 


Martin 


166 


163 


(1.8) 




25,812 




25,534 


(1.1) 


Tyrrell 


14 


38 


171.4 




1,935 




6,004 


210.3 


Washington 


106 


118 


11.3 




15,200 




14,463 


(4.8) 


District Totals 


590 


649 


10.0 


S 


96,771 


$ 


100,030 


3.4 


District 3 
















* 


Carteret 


261 


7 2 


(72.4) 


S 


52,1 10 


$ 


12,207 


(76.6) 


Craven 


396 


96 


(75.8) 




96,092 




35,552 


(63.0) 


Pamlico 


38 


13 


(65.8) 




7,769 




4,918 


(36.7) 


Pitt 


671 


212 


(68.4) 




1 30,689 




80,971 


(38.0) 


District Totals 


1,366 


393 


(71.2) 


S 


286,660 


$ 


133,648 


(53.4) 


District 4 


















Duplin 


294 


334 


13.6 


$ 


55,596 


$ 


84,606 


52.2 


Jones 


57 


51 


10.5 




9,822 




11,895 


21.1 


Onslow 


701 


719 


2.6 




166,940 




188,665 


13.0 


Sampson 


364 


362 


(.6) 




72,847 




98,734 


35.5 


District Totals 


1,416 


1,466 


3.5 


$ 


305,205 


$ 


383,900 


25.8 


District 5 


















New Hanover 


890 


843 


(5.3) 


s 


248,981 


s 


229,809 


(7.7) 


Pender 


96 


101 


5.2 




18,959 




22,535 


18.9 


District Totals 


986 


944 


(4.3) 


$ 


267,940 


$ 


252,344 


(5.8) 


District 6 


















Bertie 


202 


221 


9.4 


s 


29,728 


$ 


39,247 


32.0 


Halifax 


514 


588 


14.4 




80,185 




94,777 


18.2 


Hertford 


208 


237 


13.9 




28,189 




39,683 


40.8 


Northampton 


156 


208 


33.3 




19,895 




49,516 


148.9 


District Totals 


1,080 


1,254 


16.1 


s 


157,997 


$ 


223,223 


41.3 


District 7 


















Edgecombe 


638 


496 


(22.3) 


s 


131,319 


s 


93,430 


(28.9) 


Nash 


558 


600 


7.5 




108,874 




128,601 


18.1 


Wilson 


787 


592 


(24.8) 




167,624 




118,297 


(29.4) 


District Totals 


1,983 


1,688 


(14.9) 


s 


407,817 


$ 


340,328 


(16.6) 



*lncludes numbers of cases and expenditures for guardian ad litem. 



V) 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel — Numbers of Cases and Expenditures* 
Fiscal Years 1980-81 and 1981-82 



Number of Cases 



Expenditures 



/ Ustrict 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 

District Totals 

District 9 



Franklin 
Gram ille 
Person 
Vance 
\\ arren 

District Totals 

District ID 
Wake 

District 11 



District 14 
Durham 



District 15 A 
Alamance 



District 15B 







% Increase 


1980-81 


1981-82 


or (Decrease) 


97 


91 


(6.2) 


833 


830 


(.4) 


971 


984 


1.3 


1,901 


1,905 


.2 


189 


228 


20.6 


319 


268 


(16.0) 


228 


210 


(7.9) 


329 


411 


24.9 


117 


1 10 


(6.0) 


1,182 


1,227 


3.8 



2,295 



2,359 



822 



2,393 



2,642 



945 



4.3 



Harnett 


410 


467 


13.9 


Johnston 


720 


713 


(1.0) 


Lee 


325 


389 


19.7 


District Totals 


1,455 


1,569 


7.8 


District 12 








Cumberland 


292 


253 


(13.4) 


Hoke 


29 


26 


(10.3) 


District Totals 


321 


279 


(13.1) 


District 13 










413 


376 


(9.0) 


Brunswick 


362 


300 


(17.1) 


(Olumbus 


626 


672 


7.4 


District Totals 


1,401 


1,348 


(3.8) 



12.0 



15.0 



( hatham 


1 75 


180 


2.9 


Orange 


6 74 


790 


17.2 


District Totals 


849 


970 


14.2 


Di iru l lf> 










1 , 1 34 


1,267 


11.7 




461 


562 


21.9 


District Totals 


1 ,595 


1,829 


14.7 



1980-81 



16,933 
113,948 
210,139 

341,020 



40,311 
48,324 
38,820 
59,654 
19,051 
206,160 



$ 389,008 



69,421 
79,750 
44,713 

193,884 



107,609 
5,169 

112,778 



54,164 

45,349 

76,360 

175,873 



$ 372,366 



$ 127,540 



$ 37,949 

1 20,308 

$ 158,257 



$ 157,998 

63,456 

$ 221,454 





% Increase 


1981-82 


or (Decrease) 


$ 14,146 


(16.5) 


144,388 


26.7 


199,727 


(5.0) 


$ 358,261 


5.1 


$ 63,366 


57.2 


47,234 


(2.3) 


41,016 


5.7 


78,625 


31.8 


24,508 


28.6 


$ 254,749 


23.6 


$ 478,675 


23.1 


$ 61,011 


(12.1) 


82,820 


3.6 


53,166 


18.9 


$ IV 997 


1.6 


$ 69,614 


(35.2) 


2,624 


(49.2) 


$ 72,238 


(36.0) 


$ 61,626 


13.8 


48,423 


6.8 


101,629 


33.1 


$ 211,678 


20.4 


$ 502,197 


34.9 


$ 146,882 


15.2 


$ 40,387 


6.4 


130,756 


8.7 


$ 171,143 


8.1 


$ 203,580 


28.9 


75,369 


18.8 


$ 278,949 


26.0 



* Includi i and expenditures for guardian ad litem. 



60 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel — Numbers of Cases and Expenditures* 
Fiscal Years 1980-81 and 1981-82 





Number of Cases 


% Increase 




Kxpenditures 




















% Increase 




1980-81 


1981-82 


or (Decrease) 


1980-81 


1981-82 


or (Decrease) 


District 17 A 


















Caswell 


188 


147 


(21.8) 


$ 


37,864 


$ 


20,920 


(44.8) 


Rockingham 


742 


730 


(1.6) 




116,879 




124,147 


6.2 


District Totals 


930 


877 


(5.7) 


S 


154,743 


$ 


145,067 


(6.3) 


District 17 B 


















Stokes 


148 


144 


(2.7) 


$ 


29,786 


$ 


20.353 


(31.7) 


Surry 


595 


579 


(2.7) 




93,121 




108,249 


16.3 


District Totals 


743 


723 


(2.7) 


$ 


122,907 


$ 


128,602 


4.6 


District 18 


















Guilford 


748 


760 


1.6 


s 


411,534 


$ 


190,463 


(53.7) 


District 19 A 


















Cabarrus 


710 


829 


I6.S 


$ 


130,626 


$ 


163,014 


24.8 


Rowan 


1,129 


1,144 


1.3 




157,637 




157,242 


(.3) 


District Totals 


1,839 


1,973 


7.3 


$ 


288,263 


s 


320,256 


11.1 


District 19B 
















r 


Montgomery 


218 


235 


7.8 


$ 


43,094 


$ 


47,198 


9.5 


Randolph 


514 


509 


(1.0) 




101,085 




101,829 


.7 


District Totals 


732 


744 


1.6 


s 


144,179 


$ 


149,027 


3.4 


District 20 


















Anson 


214 


303 


42.0 


$ 


36,491 


$ 


58,331 


59.9 


Moore 


579 


644 


11.2 




72,179 




77.300 


7.1 


Richmond 


525 


661 


25.9 




79,465 




103,478 


30.2 


Stanly 


464 


496 


6.9 




82,977 




81,279 


(2.1) 


Union 


589 


678 


15.1 




105,857 




107,837 


1.9 


District Totals 


2,371 


2,782 


17.3 


s 


376,969 


s 


428,225 


13.6 


District 21 


















Forsyth 


2,954 


3,145 




$ 


409,994 


§ 


473,396 


15.5 


District 22 


















Alexander 


173 


173 


— 


$ 


26,862 


$ 


26,157 


(2.6) 


Davidson 


732 


811 


10.8 




123,185 




144,671 


17.4 


Davie 


176 


155 


(11.9) 




2 1 ,59 1 




23,498 


8.8 


Iredell 


581 


670 


15.3 




92,095 




106,957 


16.1 


District Totals 


1,662 


1,809 


K.X 


$ 


263,733 


s 


301,283 


14.2 


District 23 


















Alleghany 


43 


52 


20.9 


$ 


6,297 


$ 


10,200 


62.0 


Ashe 


132 


146 


10.6 




16,685 




15,675 


(6.1) 


Wilkes 


372 


450 


21.0 




46,742 




66,360 


42.0 


Yadkin 


183 


193 


5.5 




19,561 




27,167 


38.9 


District Totals 


730 


841 


15.2 


s 


89,285 


$ 


119,402 


33.7 



* Includes numbers of cases and expenditures lor guardian ad litem. 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel — Numbers of Cases and Expenditures* 
Fiscal Years 1980-81 and 1981-82 



Number of Cases 



Kxpenditures 



1980-81 



1981-82 



District 24 

A\er\ 
Madison 

Mitchell 
Watauga 

District Totals 



Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

District Totals 



District 


26 


Mecklenburg 


District 


27 A 


Gaston 




Disirii i 


27 B 



( leveland 
1 incoln 

District Totals 

Distri, 
Buncombe 

Distri, 

Hendei ,on 

McDi 

Polk 

rtord 

District lotals 

District 3d 

( 

M i n 

District Totals 
State lotals 



135 


151 


I 13 


137 


86 


73 


190 


161 


S3 


52 


607 


574 


627 


563 


640 


643 


971 


1,038 


2,238 


2,244 



1,503 



122 



491 
232 
723 



391 



3,056 



178 



445 
227 
672 



327 



341 


399 


295 


277 


61 


60 


308 


314 


92 


124 


1,097 


1,174 


126 


1 15 


32 


26 


■<;-; 


41 


31 1 


290 


123 


154 


151 


203 


56 


73 


8.37 


902 



% Increase 
or (Decrease) 



11.9 

21.2 

(15.1) 

15.3 

(37.4) 
(5.4) 



(10.2) 
.5 
6.9 

.3 



103.3 



45.9 



1980-81 



42,528 



45,054 



(9.4) 

(2 2) 
(7.0) 



(16.4) 



17.0 
(6.1) 
(16) 

2.0 
34.8 

7.0 



(8.7) 

(18.8) 

7.9 
(6 8) 
25.2 
34.4 
30.4 

7.8 

5.9 



s 


23,282 




17,789 




21,216 




33,722 




12,288 


% 


108,297 


s 


103,297 




88,371 




154,977 




346,645 


$ 


338,119 


$ 


22,140 


s 


105,808 




45,504 


$ 


151,312 


$ 


45,553 


$ 


47,729 




42,201 




14,961 




44,380 




17,445 


% 


166,716 


$ 


20,036 




7,616 




4,580 




53,749 




14,247 




16,024 




5,881 


1. 


122,133 


$7,508,808 





% Increase 


1981-82 


or (Decrease) 


$ 24,663 


5.9 


25,404 


42.8 


1 1 ,369 


(46.4) 


30,132 


(10.7) 


13,601 


10.7 


$ 105,169 


(2.9) 


$ 102,591 


(.7) 


102,296 


15.8 


184,412 


19.0 


389,299 


12.3 


$ 621,245 


83.7 


$ 28,543 


28.9 


$ 95,049 


(10.2) 


43,469 


(4.5) 


$ 138,518 


(8.5) 


$ 39,319 


(13.7) 


$ 71,765 


50.4 


41,685 


(1.2) 


13,899 


(7.1) 


47,818 


7.8 


32,897 


88.6 


$ 208,064 


24.8 


$ 17,669 


(M.8) 


4,278 


(43.8) 


4,574 


(.1) 


35,21 1 


34.5 


25,377 


78.1 


16,662 


4.0 


8,440 


43.5 


$ 112,211 


(8D 


S«, 160,574 


8.7 



dI casi and i tpendi lures for guardian ml litem 



62 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL 
(Positions and salaries authorized as of June 30, 1982) 



Positions 
Authorized 



7 
23 



12 
29 

is 



68 

74 

39 



142 

620 

33 

6 



35 

273 
73 



100 
1367 

7 



6 

54 

20 

4 

4 



273 
47 



I 

I 

98 



Salary Ranges 

SUPREME COURT 

Justices $57,012-558,212 

Staff personnel (Clerk's and Reporter's offices, 

law clerks, library staff) $1 1,484-539,756 

Secretarial personnel $1 1,4X4-$ 17,076 

COURT OF APPEALS 

Judges $55,18K-$53,976 

Staff personnel (Clerk's office, prehearing staff, 

Judicial Standards Commission staff, law clerks) $ 9,264-$32,856 

Secretarial personnel $1 1,484-$ 17,076 

SUPERIOR COURT 

Judges $47,928-$49,500 

Staff personnel $14,916-529,880 

Secretarial personnel $ 9,264-$ 1 5,6 12 

DISTRICT COURT 

Judges $38,808-540,344 

Magistrates $ 9,936-$ 15,372 

Staff personnel $10,524-$ 15,6 12 

Secretarial personnel $ 9,264-$ 1 3,644 

DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

District Attorneys $44,580 

Staff personnel $12,012-$42,456 

Secretarial personnel $ 8,856-$ 1 5,6 1 2 

CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

Clerks of Superior Court $20,OI6-$37,608 

Staff personnel $ 8,148-524,732 

Secretarial personnel 5 9,264-513,644 

INDIGENT REPRESENTATION 

Public Defenders 544,580 

Staff personnel 512,540-540,980 

Secretarial personnel 5 9,264-515,612 

Special counsel at mental hospitals $18,000-$22,488 

Secretarial personnel $ 9,264-$ 13,644 

JUVENILE PROBATION AND AFTERCARE 

Court counselors $12,012-528,500 

Secretarial personnel $ 8,856-$ 15,6 12 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

Administrative Officer of the Courts $50,940 

Assistant Director $36,384 

Staff personnel $10,524-$37,908 



63 



PART IV 



TRIAL COURTS CASEFLOW DATA 

• Superior Court Division 



• District Court Division 



TRIAL COURTS CASE DATA 



This part of the Annual Report presents pertinent data 
on a district-by-district and county-by-county basis. For 
ease of reference, this part is divided into a superior court 
division section and a district court division section. 

The data within the two sections generally parallel each 
other in terms of organization, with each section subdi- 
vided into civil and criminal case categories. With some 
exceptions, there are three basic data tables for each case 
category: a caseload inventory (filings, dispositions and 
pending) table; a table on the manner of dispositions; and 
a table on ages of cases disposed of during the year and 
ages of cases pending at the end of the year. Pending and 
age data are not provided for district court motor vehicle 
criminal cases, for civil cases (small claims) referred to 
magistrates, and for juvenile cases, inasmuch as these 
categories of cases are not reported by case file number. 

The caseload inventory tables provide a statistical pic- 
ture of caseflow during the 1981-82 year. Items recorded 
in this table include the number of cases pending at the 
beginning of the year, the number of new cases filed, the 
number of cases disposed of during the year, and the 
number of cases left pending at the end of the year. The 
caseload inventory also shows the total caseload (the 
number pending at the beginning of the year plus the 
number filed during the year) and the percentage of the 
caseload which was disposed of during the year. 

The aging tables show the ages of the cases pending on 
June 30, 1982 as well as the ages of the cases disposed of 
during 198 1-82. These tables also show both mean (aver- 
age) and median ages for each set of cases — those pending 
at the end of the year and those that were disposed of 
during the year. The median age of a group of cases is, by 
definition, the age of a hypothetical case which is older 
than 50% of the total set of cases and younger than the 
other 50%. 

Unlike the median, the mean age can be substantially 
raised (or lowered) if even a small number of very old (or 
very young) cases are included. For example, if only a 
single two-year old case was included among ten cases 
aged three months, the median age would be 90 days and 
the mean (average) age would be 148.2 days. A substantial 
difference between the median and average ages, there- 
fore, indicates the presence of a number of rather long- 
pending, or short-pending, cases. 



Separate summary tables at the end of Part IV show the 
comparative rankings, for the 1981-82 year, in terms of 
percentage of disposition of caseloads for the 34 judicial 
districts and the 100 counties. 

The case statistics in Part IV have been calculated from 
filing and disposition case data submitted to the Adminis- 
trative Office of the Courts by the 100 clerks of superior 
court across the State. The present case reporting system 
is essentially a manual one: weekly reports from each 
clerk's office are mailed to Raleigh, where they are 
computer-coded, entered and processed. Pending case 
information is computer-calculated from the filing and 
disposition data. The accuracy of the pending case figures 
is, of course, dependent upon timely and accurate filing 
and disposition data. 

Periodic comparisons by clerk personnel of theiractual 
pending case files against AOC's computer-produced 
pending case lists, followed by indicated corrections, is 
necessary to maintain completely accurate data in the 
AOC computer file. Yet, staff resource in the clerks' offi- 
ces is not sufficient to make such physical inventory 
checks as frequently and as completely as would be neces- 
sary to maintain full accuracy in AOC's computer files. 
Thus, it is recognized that some of the figures published in 
the following tables have errors of some degree. 

Another accuracy-related problem inherent in a man- 
ual reporting system is the lack of absolute consistency in 
the published year-end and year-beginning pending fig- 
ures. The number of cases pending at the end of a report- 
ing year should ideally be identical with the number of 
published pending cases at the beginning of the next 
reporting year. In reality, this is rarely the case. Expe- 
rience has shown that inevitably some filings and disposi- 
tions which occurred in the preceding year do not get 
reported until the subsequent year. The later-reported 
data is regarded as being more complete reporting and is 
used, thereby producing some differences between the 
prior year's end-pending figures and the current year's 
beginning-pending figures. 

Notwithstanding the indicated limitations in the data 
reporting and data-processing system, it is believed that 
the published figures are sufficiently adequate to fully 
justify their use. In any event, the published figures are the 
best and most accurate data currently available. 



67 



PART IV, Section 1 



Superior Court Division 
Caseflow Data 



The Superior Court Division 



This section contains data tables and accompanying 
charts depicting the caseflow during the 1981-82 year of 
cases pending, filed and disposed of in the State's superior 
courts, that is, cases before superior court judges; and 
cases pending, filed and disposed of before the 100 clerks 
of superior court, who have original jurisdiction over 
estates cases and special proceedings. 

There are, for statistical reporting purposes, three cate- 
gories of cases filed in the superior courts: civil cases and 
felony cases which are within the original jurisdiction of 
the superior courts; and misdemeanor appeals from the 
district courts to superior courts, for trial de novo. 

During 198 1-82, as the bar graph on the following page 
illustrates, felony cases contributed the greatest propor- 
tion of all case filings (50.6%), misdemeanor appeals the 
second greatest proportion of all case filings (3 1.7%), with 
civil cases amounting to 1 7.7% of total case filings in the 
superior courts. Although a slight drop in the percentage 
of felony filings and an increase in civil filings is recorded, 
the above proportions for the three categories of cases are 
in line with the prevailing pattern of recent years. 

As in previous years, the following bar chart and the 
second bar graph indicate that the "typical" superior 
court civil case takes considerably longer to dispose of 
than the "typical"criminal case. The bar chart shows that 
the numbers of cases filed and disposed of during 198 1-82 
in the two criminal case categories (felonies and misde- 
meanor appeals) are considerably larger than year-end 
case pending totals. On the other hand, the total number 
of civil cases pending at year's end exceeds both civil case 
filings and dispositions. Data presented in the second bar 
graph, as well as in the following tables covering the ages 
of superior court cases, clearly supports the longer dispo- 
sition period conclusion regarding civil cases. The 
median-age data, which is presented in the second bar 
graph, shows that the medin age of superior court civil 
cases pending on June 30, 1982 is 254 days. Similar data, 
covering pending cases in the felony and misdemeanor 
appeal categories, shows median ages of 83 and 69 days, 
respectively. For superior court civil case dispositions in 
1981-82, the median case age at disposition was 307 days, 
compared to 73 days for felony cases at disposition and 62 
days for misdemeanor appeals at disposition. Comparing 
this median-age data with the same information for 1 980- 
81, it is significant that the median age of pending civil 
cases dropped from 284 days in 1980-81 to 254 days for 
1981-82 and the median age for civil cases at disposition 



dropped from 315 days in 1980-81 to 307 days in 1981-82. 
This represents an improvement in the overall pattern of 
civil case dispositions. 

The 1981-82 aging data for pending cases in the two 
criminal case categories shows increases from the median 
ages reported for 1980-81. The median age of pending 
felony cases rose from 81 days in 1980-81 to 83 days in 
1981-82, and a similar increase was recorded in the 
median age of pending misdemeanor appeals from 64 
days in 1980-81 to 69 days during 1981-82. The median 
age of felony cases at disposition also rose during the past 
fiscal year from 71 days in 1980-81 to 73 days in 1981-82. 
On the other hand, the median age of misdemeanor 
appeals declined from 64 days in 1980-81 to 62 days in 
1981-82. 

These differences in the median ages of cases disposed 
of or still pending in superior courts can be attributed in 
part to the priority given criminal cases. The right of a 
criminal case defendant to a "speedy trial" is guaranteed 
in both the United States and North Carolina Constitu- 
tions; and current North Carolina statutes prescribe that 
criminal cases must be tried within 120 days of filing 
unless there has been justifiable delay for one or more of 
the good causes specified in the statutes. No comparable 
"standard" for the speedy disposition of civil cases has 
been adopted in North Carolina, although the North 
Carolina Constitution does provide that "right and justice 
shall be administered without favor, denial, or delay" in 
the section declaring every person's right to legal remedy 
for "injury in his lands, goods, person or reputation." 
(Article I, Section 18, N. C. Constitution) 

During 1981-82, a Statewide total of 84,571 casesofall 
types were filed in the superior courts. This represents an 
increase of only 2, 1 30 (2.6%) over 1 980-8 1 case filings of 
82,441 , which is considerably below the increase trend for 
filings in recent years. A review of similar data for the 
period between 1977 and the end of 1980-81 reveals that 
filings increased by an average of 6,925 cases a year, or an 
average rate of increase of 10.2%. 

As for the manner of dispositions, it is noteworthy that 
jury trials in superior court continue to be responsible for 
a low percentage of case dispositions: 924 civil cases 
(6.2%) out of a total of 14,982; 2,5 1 3 felony cases (6.2%,) 
out of a total of 40,715; and 1,280 misdemeanor cases 
(4.8%j) out of a total of 26,468 misdemeanordispositions. 

The data tables also show that pleas of guilty are 
entered in a majority (53.6%) of criminal case dispositions. 



71 



SUPERIOR COURT CASELOAD 

1981-82 



i 

ii 
o 
u 

s 

\ 

N 
i i 
S 

O 

1 

( 

A 

S 

I 
s 



50 



40 _. 



30 _. 



Filings 
Dispositions 
End Pending 



15,544 




4.964 l4 - 4K2 



CIVIL 



42,802 



40,715 



13.577 



FLLONIKS 



26,805 



26,468 



7,2X0 



MISDEMEANORS 



Civil case dispositions rose 9.0% during the 1981-82 year 
and exceeded (100.1%) the number of civil cases filed 
during the same time period. Felony case tilings in 



1981-82 increased by less than .1% over the 1980-81 fil- 
ings, while felony dispositions in 1981-82 decreased by 
1.5% from the 1980-81 period. 



72 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

1972-1982 



90 



I 

II 

o 

I 

s 

A 

N 

D 

s 



so 



70 



60 



() 

F 50 



C 
A 

S 
E 

S 



40 



}0 




Filings 



End Pending • ' 
.•• • . 



72 73 



74 



75 



76 



77 



78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 



This graph portrays civil and criminal caseload in the 
superior courts. Filings and dispositions continued the 
increasing trend of the last four years, but the 1981-82 



increase was not as great as in the past. The year-end 
pending case count increased over last year; the increase is 
entirely due to criminal cases. 



73 



CASELOAD TRENDS OF CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

1972-1982 



20 



I 
H 

o 
U 

s 

\ 
\ 

D 

s 



15 



Ending Pending ,». . . 




4 Dispositions 



7 2 



73 



74 



IS 



76 



77 



78 



78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 



For the first time since 1972, dispositions for civil cases 
exceeded filings; as a consequence, the volume of year- 
end pending cases dropped. 



74 



LIFETIMES OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES 

Median Ages of Cases Pending 6/30/82 and of Cases Disposed of During 1981-82 



Civil 



Felony 



Misdemeanor 




254.0 



Civil 




Felony 



Misdemeanor 



307.0 



73.0 



62.0 



□ 



Pending 
Cases 

Disposed 
Cases 



100 200 

Median Age (Days) 



300 



400 



The median age of a case category is that age with respect 
to which 50% of all cases in the category are younger and 
50% of all cases are older; it is the 50th percentile of ages 
of all cases in the category. As shown in the above graph, 
the median age of all civil superior court cases disposed of 
during 1981-82 was 307 days and the median age of all 



criminal superior court cases disposed of during 1981-82 
was less than 75 days, reflecting the very substantially 
greater time taken to process civil cases through the super- 
ior courts. A similar relationship exists with respect to the 
median ages of pending civil and criminal cases. 



75 



District 1 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 

Pending 

7 I SI 



Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 


15 
3] 
35 
70 

8 
58 

)6 


District Totals 


253 


District 2 




Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 


52 

19 
42 

10 

.'4 


District Totals 


147 


District 3 




Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 


141 

14;; 
19 

,'i ; 


District Totals 


VI 


District 4 




Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 


85 

m 
it'/i 

75 


District Totals 


151 


District 5 




New Hanover 
Pender 


234 
76 


District Totals 


',10 


District 6 




Bertie 
Hal i fax 
Hertford 
Northampton 


4/ 
80 
5] 
S3 


District Totals 


211 


District 7 




Edgecombe 
Nash 
Wi 1 son 


83 

145 
111 


District Totals 


: C( 


District 8 




Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 


13 

1 ',? 
205 


District Totals 


i50 


District 9 







Tolal 




% Caseload 


Pending 


led 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/82 


15 


1(1 


11 


36.6 


19 


26 


57 


ill 


52.6 


21 


13 


48 


21 


43.7 


27 


78 


148 


66 


44.5 


82 


1 i 


1') 


6 


31.5 


13 


57 


115 


74 


64.3 


41 


24 


hi) 


28 


'46.6 


32 



224 477 236 49.4 241 



7/ 

i?; 1 

27 
6 

33 



155 



15.' 

18(1 

20 

244 



l;"l 


65 


50.3 


f,4 


41 


26 


63.4 


15 


h<) 


30 


43.4 


39 


If", 


8 


50.0 


8 


57 


27 


47.3 


30 


312 


15f, 


50.0 


15f, 


,")•; 


158 


53.9 


135 


v;<, 


154 


46.9 


1/4 


•;') 


24 


61.5 


15 


457 


251 


54.9 


206 



187 


88 


47.0 


<ri 


<:•■: 


20 


52.6 


18 


;„,,, 


139 


46.4 


160 


17"', 


HM 


58.3 


72 



596 1,117 587 52.5 530 



18 

136 
94 

346 697 348 49.9 349 

270 504 251 49.8 253 

35 111 61 54.9 50 

305 515 312 50.7 303 

42 89 46 51.6 43 

74 154 75 48.7 79 

58 109 53 48.6 56 

31 64 29 45.3 35 

205 416 203 48.7 213 

107 

114 
108 

329 668 347 51.9 321 

9 
159 

?-'.] 

399 749 383 51.1 366 

63 143 72 50.3 71 

Granville 58 57 115 56 48.6 59 



I'M] 


11/ 


61.5 


73 


259 


1 If, 


44.7 


14 1 


,'1'f 


114 


52.0 


105 



;v 


11 


50.0 


11 


'/'>] 


153 


52.5 


1 18 


4 if, 


219 


50.2 


217 



Person 47 46 93 57 61.2 36 

Vance 7 3 79 152 74 48.6 78 

Warren 44 17 61 36 59.0 25 

ct Totals 302 262 564 295 52.3 269 



IV 


50.3 


56 


48.6 


57 


61.2 


/4 


48.6 


36 


59.0 



76 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 



District 10 
Wake 

District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 
District 12 



Bladen 
Brunswick 
Col umbus 

District Totals 
District 14 



Durham 




District 


15A 


Alamance 




District 


15B 



iding 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


1/81 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/82 


165 


1,540 


2,705 


1,387 


51.2 


1,318 


1 ',' 


110 


;•/!,• 


L47 


60.7 


95 


Vvi 


,"80 


469 


308 


65.6 


161 


96 


68 


L64 


104 


63.4 


60 



417 



Cumberland 


<;-;/! 


Hoke 


14 


District Totals 


100 


District 13 





00 

83 

1 {)', 

250 



501 



I'V 



458 



370 



378 



57 
93 

183 



163 



875 



754 
22 

776 



62 

140 
231 

433 



989 



355 



000 



S00 
18 

373 



SO 

Oh 

19] 



5 30 



167 



63.8 



47.0 
81.8 

48.0 



48.3 
46.4 
41.5 

44.1 



53.5 



47.0 



',16 



399 

4 

403 



32 
75 

1 V, 

242 



459 



(88 



Chatham 
Orange 


40 
1 55 


49 

184 


89 

3 30 


04 
184 


60.6 
54.2 


so 
155 


District Totals 


10', 


233 


428 


238 


55.6 


100 


District 16 














Robeson 
Scotland 


100 
•A 


148 
20 


257 

54 


1 SI 

ill 


50.9 
55.5 


L26 

24 


District Totals 


143 


168 


311 


161 


51.7 


ISO 


District 17A 














Caswell 
Rockingham 


27 
127 


18 

100 


40 
286 


21 

161, 


46.6 
58.0 


24 

100 


District Totals 


154 


177 


331 


18/ 


56.4 


144 


District 17B 














Stokes 
Surry 


21 

100 


44 
142 


6 

242 


S9 
144 


60.0 
59.5 


26 

08 


District Totals 


121 


186 


307 


183 


59.6 


104 


District 18 
Guil ford 














Greensboro 
High Point 


1,249 
270 


748 
235 


1,997 
505 


702 

246 


35.1 
48.7 


1,295 
259 


District Totals 


1,519 


983 


2,502 


948 


37.8 


1,554 


District 19A 














Cabarrus 
Rowan 


L56 

140 


1 36 
154 


292 

30 3 


110 

158 


40.7 
52.1 


173 

140 


District Totals 


SI)', 


290 


000 


277 


46.5 


318 


District 198 














Montgomery 
Randolph 


23 

135 


18 

1 46 


41 
28] 


19 

no 


46.3 
39.1 


22 

171 



District Totals 



158 



164 



322 



loo 



40.0 



L93 



I 1 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1981 -June 30, 1982 



District 20 

Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 

District Totals 



Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


7 1 81 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/82 


9] 


36 


127 


60 


47.2 


67 


150 


139 


289 


124 


42.9 


11,5 


121 


63 


184 


62 


33.6 


122 


60 


87 


14/ 


5 7 


38.7 


,)i) 


154 


178 


332 


11,7 


50.3 


165 



5 76 



50 3 



1,079 



4 70 



43.5 



609 



District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 

District Totals 

District 23 

Al leghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 

District Totals 
District 24 



Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 

District Totals 

District 25 

Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 

District Totals 

District 28 
Buncombe 

District 29 



657 



25 
160 

29 
114 

328 



10 

33 

181 

29 

253 



166 



210 

171 
319 

700 



2, L 



544 



139 

45 

185 



058 



23 

201 

55 

19 7 

477 



12 
20 

142 
50 

204 



224 



186 
181 

312 

5 79 



2,110 



461 



I/O 
81 

261 



580 



1,325 



36 1 
85 
311 

805 



22 

53 

32 3 

59 

46/ 



(90 



196 
562 
631 

1,379 



4,598 



1,005 



509 

127 

4 36 



1,076 



755 



17 

211 

37 

1 8 1 
468 



19 

>.l 

177 

(6, 

269 



211 



206 
1 86 
144 

735 



2,051 



426 



1/4 
HJ 

26 1 



6/2 



56.9 



77.0 
58.4 
43.5 
58.8 

58.1 



86.3 
69.8 
54.7 
61.0 

58.8 



54.1 



52.0 
52.5 
54.5 

53.2 



44.6 



42.2 



56.3 
68.5 

59.8 



53.1 



6 70 



11 
160 

48 
128 

337 



3 

16 

146 

2 3 

188 



20 


44 


64 


32 


50.0 


32 


19 


41 


60 


32 


53.3 


28 


24 


<7 


61 


29 


47.5 


32 


54 


73 


12 7 


61 


48.0 


66 


4 9 


29 


78 


5 7 


73.0 


21 



179 



190 
167 
287 

644 



2,547 



580 



135 
40 

175 



604 



Henderson 


14/ 


116 


26 3 


86 


32.6 


177 


Mc Dowel 1 


4 6 


42 


91 


30 


32.9 


61 


Polk 


22 


10 


32 


13 


40.6 


19 


'ford 


92 


84 


176 


78 


44.3 


98 


Transyl vania 


4 i 


50 


99 


66 


56.5 


43 


District Totals 


56 3 


',08 


661 


26 1 


39.7 


398 



78 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/81 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/82 
District 30 

Cherokee 31 39 70 28 40.0 42 

Clay 12 10 22 11 50.0 11 

Graham 19 17 36 19 52.7 17 

Haywood 110 79 189 98 51.8 91 

Jackson 142 50 192 71 36.9 121 

Macon 60 39 99 51 51.5 48 

Swain 40 23 63 27 42.8 36 

District Totals 414 257 671 305 46.4 366 

State Totals 15,462 14,964 30,426 14,982 49.2 15,444 



7 ( ) 



MKTHODS OF DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL CASES 

1981-82 



CLE Rk 




VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 



OIHLR 



The above graph of disposition methods for civil superior 
court cases during 19X1-82 is very similar to the compara- 
ble graph tor previous years. As in the past, voluntary 
dismissals represent the largest number of dispositions. 



When compared with 1980-81, these percentages show 
increased dispositions within the voluntary dismissal, 
judge, jury categories, and declines in the clerk and other 
categories. 



80 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 



Total 
Dispositions 

11 

21 

66 

6 

74 

28 

2 36 



Judge 

1 

7 
11 
L9 

1 
21 

9 

69 



Jury 

3 

2 
(i 

1 

(» 
3 

r> 





Voluntary 




fk 


Dismissal 


Other 


2 


5 





8 


L2 


1 


2 


7 


1 


13 


<3 


1 


2 


2 


II 


ii, 


1'. 


It, 


'i 


11 


1) 



48 



85 



l'i 



District 2 



Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 


65 

30 

8 

27 


24 
10 

10 
5 

3 


5 


1 

i) 
1 


District Totals 


156 


52 


7 


District 3 








Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 


158 

154 

24 

251 


56 

39 

6 

77 


11 

21 

1 

3 


District Totals 


587 


178 


if, 


District 4 








Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 


88 

20 

1 34 

101 


22 

5 

50 

32 


10 

n 
2 
8 


District Totals 


348 


109 


20 


District 5 








New Hanover 
Pender 


251 

i,l 


106 
28 


14 
7 


District Totals 


S12 


13-1 


21 


District 6 








Bertie 
Halifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 


46 
75 
53 
29 


12 

29 
13 
14 


2 


4 

1 


District Totals 


20 3 


68 


7 


District 7 








Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 


117 
116 

114 


51 
39 

38 


3 

9 

11 


District Totals 


34 7 


128 


23 


District 8 








Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 


11 
153 
219 


7 

34 
78 


ii 
14 
21 


District Totals 


38 3 


119 


i 1 , 


District 9 









Frankl in 
Granvi 1 le 
Person 
Vance 
Warren 

District Totals 



72 


26 


56 


19 


5 7 


27 


74 


38 


3f, 


17 



245 



127 



ii 
6 

4 
1 
(I 

11 



4 


14 


13 


1 


14 


1 


(, 


1, 


7 


1 


1 


1 


5 


18 






17 



12 
13 

2 
',7 

1,4 



9 

4 
HI 

!6 



1M 



18 



4 
11 
11 

2 
(3 



62 



58 



i: 

72 

9 

1/4 

277 



4 I 
3 

78 
49 

173 



I I i 

2! 
) 16 



17 

:l 
23 

8 
76 



4 


52 


;■', 


56 


l ; 


4 7 


■;n 


155 


3 


ii 


24 


76 


10 


88, 



164 



6 


15 


7 


22 


4 


22 


5 


27 


2 


15 



22 



7 
4 

6 

Hi 

'.? 



5 

'■ 

ii 
2 

in 



24 



121 



2 
4 

211 



2 
4 
5 

11 



6 
2 

II 

3 
2 

12 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 



District 10 


Total 
Dispositions 


Judge 


Jury 


Clerk 


Voluntary 
Dismissal 


Other 




1,387 


571 


55 


115 


488 


48 


District 11 














Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 


14 7 

S08 

104 


51 

1 02 
54 


L8 

13 

7 


3 

if, 
4 


72 

KM 

27 


3 

34 
12 


District Totals 


559 


207 


>,!< 


43 


282 


44 


District 12 














Cumberland 
Hoke 


355 

18 


117 
7 


10 
1 


21 

1 


.'0(1 


1 
6 


District Totals 


373 


124 


17 


22 


I'll! 


7 


District 13 














Bladen 

Brunswick 
Col umbus 


30 
55 

% 


11 
25 
36 



(1 

13 


1 

4 
6 


13 
!5 

41 



1 



District Totals 


191 


72 


\y. 


11 


04 


1 


District 14 















Durham 

District 15A 
Alamance 

District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 
District 16 



r .3fl 



167 



04 
184 

2 38 



1 5 3 



so 



21 
72 

93 



12 



4 
18 

22 



Robeson 


131 


71 


10 


Scotland 


30 


13 


2 


District Totals 


161 


84 


12 


District 17A 








Caswel 1 


21 


10 


o 


Rockingham 


L66 


60 


10 


District Totals 


18)7 


69 


If, 


District 17B 








Stokes 


39 


15 


o 


Surry 


144 


51 


4 


District Totals 


183 


66 


4 


District 13 








Gui 1 ford 








Greensboro 


708 


248 


40 


High Point 


246 


96 


1 i 


District Totals 


848 


145 


02 


District 19A 








Cabarrus 


119 


28 


i 


Rowan 


158 


40 


17 


District Totals 


711 


69 


Ml 


District 19B 









Montgi 
Rando 

i ct Totals 



18 

110 

188 



6 

4 8 

84 



79 



17 



3 
13 

16 



6 
6 

10 



1 
24 

25 



6 

19 
24 



4/ 
24 

71 



13 
13 

26 




10 

10 



24 7 



16 
70 

84 



23 

in 

3 3 



10 

63 

7 3 



10 

04 

02 



'.48 
111 

459 



7 3 
160 



12 

40 

61 



19 



11 
2 

13 



22 


22 



9 

2 

11 



82 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1981 —June 30, 1982 



District 20 



Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 

District Totals 



Total 
Dispositions 



Judge 



86 


21 


<ii 


11 


13 


3 


78 


32 


56 


25 



Jury 



Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


1,0 
121 
62 
6 7 
It, 7 


25 

37 
22 
31 
58 


9 

7 
1 


16 


District Totals 


470 


173 


H 


District 21 








Forsyth 


766 


216 


62 


District 22 








Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
I re de 1 1 


5 7 
211 

37 
1R-; 


17 

70 
10 
58 


1 
12 
4 
5 


District Totals 


468 


155 


,'.• 


District 23 








Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 


14 

37 

177 

10 


11 
18 

57 
12 



2 
7 
4 


District Totals 


2121 


98 


13 


District 24 








Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


12 
52 
29 

hi 
57 


L8 

18 

5 

28 

21 



4 


o 
7 


District Totals 


2 1 1 


90 


11 


District 25 








Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 


206 
L85 


77 

52 

128 


10 

6 

23 


District Totals 


735 


257 


(9 


District 26 








Mecklenburg 


2,051 


611 


119 


District 27A 








Gaston 


425 


138 


;•<) 


District 27B 








Cleveland 
Lincoln 


174 
87 


68 
30 


21 

8, 


District Totals 


26] 


98 


20 


District 28 








Buncombe 


6 72 


223 


62 


District 29 









26 3 



4 


1 
7 
4 

16 





Voluntary 




rk 


Dismissal 


Other 


3 


23 





10 


70 





14 


11 


14 


3 


2! 





','? 


65 


6 



52 



70 



00 



D 



13 



9 3 

205 

27 

13 

8 

21 

12 



192 



','14 



20 i 



2 


2 


1 


10 


12 


96 


4 


16 



1 30 



71 



2 72 



7 39 



223 



69 
41 

110 



25] 



6 


4 7 


3 


13 





9 


1 


32 


7 


20 



20 



13 



5 


12 


2 


24 


8/ 


18 





18 


6 


31 


80 


3 



28 



i 


1 


10 


1 


8 


1 


2 


20 


2 


6 


26 


1 


1 


16 


12 



26 



1/ 


96 


6 


18 


107 


2 


58 


69 


66 



74 



377 



17 



1.21 



2 
3 

6 


11 



83 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 







Total 










Dispositions 


Judge 


Jury 


District 


30 








Cherokee 




28 


17 





Clay 




11 


5 


1 


Graham 




19 


4 


< 


Haywood 




98 


V, 


1) 


Jackson 




71 


47 


1) 


Macon 




: --l 


23 


n 


Swa i n 




27 


14 


3 


District 


Totals 


305 


165 


7 


State Totals 


14 ,982 


5,363 


924 



Clerk 

1 

3 

ii 
4 
1 
4 


1 ! 
1,423 



Voluntary 
Dismissal 

10 

II 

9 

,'H 

9 

;m 

6 

MS 

6,343 



Other 



2 
3 

11 
14 

1 

■1 

35 

929 



X4 



CNJ ^J" CO O <— I C\J PO 



*3" O <"•"> o 



COrHHO 



lOOlif 



Q S 
5 ^ 



CO CO l£l rH ^H (\l C\J CO 



LO LO CXt LO 



CD CO CO CNJ LO 



P-. CNJ CX> 



00 



*g i .-■ ro 



«d- r--. CM lo ro en *3- 



ro LO •— t O CO CNJ 



«3" CO ^" CNJ <3" 



N tH (X) ro 



rj HNCO LO 



CO ro lo *=r •— < 



tf « 

P - 

o s 

O -c 

(— I 3 

OS o 
a 

^5 

•5 is 
h <3 



CD CD O LO LO LO LO o 

ro lo CO <— I N o <t «-H 

^O V£> >- i LO CJi «— t CO «d" 

CNJ CNJ LO >— ' CNJ CO CNJ 



CTtOCNj<d-cNjLn«3- co 

ro en o en r- » r»- cm r-. 

NODntOM^S LO 

ro ro lo ro ro cnj ro ro 



— ** 

2 o 
O a. 
H .8 

Q 



«3- CO r^ o cm cnj ro lo 



CD CD O CD O LT) 

en «5f co lo lo lo 

c^ «d" o in <ji cr» 

«— • cnj «^j- ro ro cm 



CTlONON CO 

LO CT\ •— • r-- i— I lo 

CO CNJ ^" O CNJ CNJ 

ro <3- lo «d- lo «d- 



UD^NHQ CO 



LO O LO o o 

CO CNJ CNJ LO <— < 

r-^ «— t r--. t— i lo 

CNJ rO CNJ CNJ CNJ 



co en en rsj .— < 

r-H <^T LO Cn CTt 

ro ^j- ro ^ lo 

ro «3- ro ro ro 



LO O O O LO 

rO LO CT> LO <3" 

Cn CO CNJ .— i LO 

^-< i— i ro CNJ CNJ 



O CTiOi in ro 

<3- LO ro <3- r--. 

r^ O co ro r-- 

cnj ro ^ ro ro 



COOCJfH CO 

co cnj ro o «d- 
.— i i— i ro 



COtn N <t 



lo ro 

<.r en 
ro ro 



,-h ro 

<d- lo 



LO LO •— < 



LO O CZ> O 

lo ro ^3- O 

O CNJ CNJ ^~ 

ro ro cnj ro 



lo ro o en ro 

lo co «3- cnj o 

con coo r-. 

ro ro ro «^- ro 



cnj «3- en r^ cnj 



in 


41 


w 


< 


C/3 


"O 


< 


c 

S5 


u 


r-i 




00 


U 


O 


*=* 


fi 


> 


v> 






u 


Oil 


O 


■5 

e 
«/ 


C/5 


i/i 


w 


4/ 

1/1 


O 


as 



ON CNJ O CNJ Lfl CO 



CNJ LT> u~> 1X3 CO 






LO<3-LOLOrO«^-LO CNJ 



<3- ro ro CO co lo lo co 



O O O LO o o o 

N CO ID N tJ «* OO 

O •— ' r-» r-^ o~> *3- lo 

CO *3- ^t CNJ CNJ CNJ CNJ 



Oi O >-• •-! N O Ol 

<— i CNJ <^- LO CO CNJ O 

•3- ex. r^ lo «* lo ro 

rj OM/1 ^T CO C\J CO 



nt ro n oin en 



r-- ^j- ^3- «^j- 1"-^ LO 



LO O O CD O 

en <a- r-- -^j- co 
co en o lo ro 

HHfOHrg 



CO lo cnj r-- ro lo 

O lo <3- cnj r-» O 

cnj lo lo o> ro en 

■^r <d- ^j- cnj cnj ro 



o o o o lo 

HfO«^ IN LO 

•— < lo ^J- <?> en 

CNJ «— • CNJ ^h <—* 



NCJOrN 
en co cnj CO 

rvfX rH CO 

cnj cnj ro CNJ 



Old in in 

LO CNJ CNJ CNJ 
LO ro LO O 
CNJ K± CNJ CNJ 



«3- CNJ LO LO CO 

CNJ ^ O CO *3" 

^J- r— < o r— LO 

ro lo «3- cnj ro 



1* "-D 
CD «-h 
CNJ LO 



en ro 
r-- •— i 

CNJ LO 



en «3- co lo 



■— * co ro lo r-* 



lo lo cnj lo r— 



O O LO O 

r-t ro o r^ 

CO CNJ i— I O-i 
•— ' CNJ CNJ •— * 



lo co en lo «— < 

en ro cnj lo »-< 

lo <— « r~-~ en r~- 

cnj «3- ro ro ro 



■5.S 



«d- lo en co o lo 






itj x: 3 ^ nj i: cii 
uuuooaa 



CD at cr cr 



s- ,_ en -r- 

o c .— c i- 

4— ■■— qj ■•— +- > 

Z3 CD -M i- -CZ ui 

(DT3 1- i- Lfl -r- 

0) >, TO >, fO CD 



t. TO E -t-> T- 

TO i- TO -f- Q 

uua Q. 



r— QJ ^- Q. 
CL C Lrt E 
3 O C TO 

Q D O (/) 



3D QJ +-> 



ai (o o 'c 



S^ 



uO Oi •— ' CTi CO CO 



LO r^ CM 



cc 



cm co cm cr* 



co co co <^j- co uo 



.-« ^H <;r 



cm ct> r»- ix3 <^r co 



MLf)H CTi 



M HLD CTt 






as 



!-t = 

O ■= 

— 3 

si 

W (/) 

MM 4* 
■M <" 

MM r" 



r 



— 4* 

2 s 



omo o 

O ^T CO i-h 

CTt -— < r- O 

CM <~o cm co 



iX) LO o 
LO <X> CT> 



r--. uo <3- r^ 



cc cc cc 
c^cor^ 

«— < CM CM 



UO LT> «=j" CTi 

r-- O CO cm 

N IT) N UO 

CM CO CO CO 



i— I CO CTi CO 

HL^H CO 
-H CM CO 



LO O O O O 

<* r^ o <=f co 

HOCOCO-* 
CO CO CM «=t U3 



■h^ in a»M uo 

^COr-*iT)Ln co 

•HCOM NlD «sf 

lo CO ^ uo r^. LO 



cri r-- co co co 



ro rv m 

CTi LO LO 
CO f— I CO 



UO r-* CO UO 



CO t— I CM 

lo «— i lo 
^- co «^r 



LO UO LD UO 



CTt CO rH 
O LO •— • 
CO CO CO 



LO <3" 
O CM 
<3" UO 



UO CM UO CTi 

O CO CM «— i 

CO «=f CO CM 

^t IT) LO LD 



T J1 

00 



< 

e 
a 






NHOCMC0 CO 



CTi r-~ O uO LD r~- 

.— ■ i— i ■— i t— • UO 



— ~. "3 s 



5: * 

M- ^ 

w e. 

W J! 

< -g 



£ 3 



01 


< 


'■'. 


CT> CM 


*" 




CO 


r- O 






1-1 


CM CM 


c 








* 

5 




o 

00 


UO CM 






*—i CO 






r J 


^r co 




M 














c 


"3 
C 
U 


CO 

r* 


CO LO 

-7 O 


- 




•— ' * — ' 



r- O O 
LO O CO 
CM CM CM 



ro<7 n .— i 

r— i uo CT) r-- 

O LO CO O 

CO CM CO CO 



HCON 
.— t CO i— I 

i— « CM 



co i— ( r-» <J\ <zt «3- 

i-H •— 1 r— I LO 



CO CO UO CO LO 



CD O LO O O 

VO CJH CO UO co 

UO «— ' *— I LO *3" 
CM CM CO r-H CO 



r-~ LO en co <3- uo 

CTi CO UO CM CM UO 

uo «cr co co co uo 

^f CO CO CM "d" CO 



UO «3" Ol CTt 



cm r-^ lo 

«-T «3- CO 
CM CM CM 



UO rH O 
CTt UO UO 



COO^ CM 



CO «d" O CM 



LO O O LO 

r- UO LO CO 

CO «-H ^f O 

r-H CO CO CO 



CT> CTt LO LO 

CTt CO CO UO 

^H CO CO <3- 

CM CO CO CO 



o c s- 



^ > O (1) 0J 



— QJ fO Q -f~ 



ro o at o 



O t/1 (_) 

■r- 3 ■■- 

C 3 JO i- 

QJ if) £ +-» 






86 



CO CO 


CO 


O CO 




CO CM 


"* 


LO 


CO CO 


' — ' 


co co 



■-h eg 







u 




00 
















o 




—a 






S 




os 






OS 










< 




o 




oe 






6 




1=1 










oe 










Os 








un 








4» 

u 


H 
OS 


k. 
S3 




s 


< 


© 


a 




s 


< 


si 

© 


u 
.5 




"3 

o 


■g 

a 


►— « 
& 


3 

Q 




H 


5 


p 


•3 
01 



a 








00 


5 








w 


w 






o 


8 
H 


4( 

u 






A 


X 








fS 


^H 


6fi 


Q 








< 


s 






< 


-13 
S 


c 




MS 


u 




■a 




X 



LO LT) 
O CO 

r- lt> 

CXI CXI 



ro ro 



ro CO r~i 






O O 
lo <XJ 



LO LO 
CXJ O 

<3- ro 



CXJ LO co 



r- cr> lo 



CXI CO 

cxi o 

<xi ro 



«— I (XI 

ro ro 



O lo 

cr> ro 

(XI i— » 
^t- ro 



co o 
lo lo 



C\J LO 

O <d- 

r-- cm 



nro lo 



CO LO 

cnj ro 
ro ro 



CO o 

CO ro 
ro ro 



O cr. 
nt ro 



o> o CT> 



O LO O O O LO 

MnyDOH c\j 

ro r-*. o «— ' cxi cr» 

in ^ rf m ro ro 



N HrMinCO LO 

o o a> lo co en 

CO CXI lo o «^ ■— ' 

r-*. LO -<3- LO <=t LO 



O ^3- cxi r-- r^ 

LO CXI LO LO LO 






u 


B 






to 

© 


13 
B 

0) 


Of} 


in 


W 




tt 




< 


In 

o 




& 




<u 




U 




< 



CM CO 


pH 


CO c\j 


LO LO 


CO 


co r~ 


CnJ h 


1— 1 


CM CO 



s ^ 


f-. 


<=t LO 




r-^ 


ro ro 




^r 


CX CXI 


e* 






■3 C 






2 = 


CO 
CO 


LO LO 

ro lo 


i"H 


«-H 


cu 







cn r-- 
cr» o 

cxi «=r 



CO <^" 


O 


O LO 


r-*. ro 


«tf 


lo ro 


ro .— i 


i — i 


i— t i—t 



r- •=3" 
os CO 



os n- 
o OS 
CM i—i 



co co 
■3- o 
^j- CO 



KO CO 

as •— < 
in ^t- 



LO OS 
OS LO 
CM CM 



CO i— 1 CM 
CO IT) OS 
CO CM CM 



os as 

<3- CO 

*a- cm 



r^ *a- i-H 



o o 

LfS LO 
-H 1^- 

CM CM 



lo co 

CO CO 



O O LO o o 
co ^r co cm co 



OS <3- *3- OS CO 
co co CO co o 
LO CO LO CO ro 



(T3 fT3 
<_> O 



, — 


CT> 




T 


OJ 




< 


_*: 




U 


m 


C ) 


CJ 


ce: 



ai 




*- ' 




-M 


T) 


1 1 


s- 




n 


L_ 


■+- 


+-> 




l/l 






13 


CJ 


O 



o 


+J 


'^ 


c 


O 




XJ 


o 


(/> 


fl. 


c~ 




Cl) 


c 


.J) 


u> 



•r- Q -^ 



-Q 3 
H3 O 

o ct: 



Or- 5^ 

en o +-» 

C C *r- 



QJ B «— c 
i- jz c o 

O U (T3 -r- 



87 



— 'O —* r~t 






mnrH<j- ro 



^O t-H rn cm 



r-J. 



ON ro o 



l^(\J <?N CO 



room o>rH t-H 



rO LO CO O CO «d- 



LO CTt CTt <o r-» 



«— * CNJ 



a; 2 

3 _ 

O S 

O u 

5 Q 

— - 

Hi 



r 



oo o o 

LOCO KO O 

«3" Cn UD CO 

cnj cm cnj *-< 



mio en m •— i 

o<-< en «*■ «-< 

r^ co ro yo o 

cnj ro ro c\j co 



NrHN f) CO 
co.— i ro CO yD 

C\J f-H «0" 



r— tO O «CT LO 



o r-. lo en 

LO LD O UD 
CM «=J" LO CM 



•— ' cm co cm >— < 

en lo c\j co o 

^ <— i CNJ CTi CM 

C\J LO <^ CM «=J- 



OCOvt-H 



moooo 

LO CTi ^t i— l CTt 

LO ^" <t iH LO 



(Tun N vt u) en 

o m st h vt ko 

UD CO CO rj- LO *f 

cm ro cm m ^ co 



oo o c\j cm co 



CO CO "^1- CNJ 

i— i cm i— * ro 
^t ro ro oo 



ro ^j- cm lo 

co n en in 

O r-. <=]- in 

n m m <* 



en *^- o co 



ro ro 
cm o 

co CM 



cm ro 
CO *d- 
ro cm 



< 
U 
- 



■a 

B 
a 

3C 



C J, 

w ^O 

w ■© 



O cm o Ln r- 



cm <— ' r-- lo lo 



ro ro r-. o uo CO 



ro «— i uo co lo 



U gf 

o ** 

0) 

U 



w 






c -— « 



O ■— ' 



CNJ i— I CO LO 



^r^m o 



CD i— i r-- LO 



OlO LO LO 



.—<.—« *3- en .— < 

O'—' CNJ CO (N 

ONCM (DO O 

f-HCM <— ' CNJ CNJ 



O CD LO O 



O i— I i-H LO 



ro CT> CNJ UD 
LO LO CTi ro 
■—I CM CNJ CM 



ro to ro r-- «^j- cm 



O en <j- en ro i_o 



O LO LO LO O O 

LO CO O LO CM i— * 

en en ■ — • lo lo en 

.— « ,— I r-t H CNJ r- 1 



ud ro en lo ro ro 

NN rOCTiCO <T) 

rocoo fnr-v lo 

CO i — I ro CNJ CO CM 



r-. ro ro 
r- cm o 

CM CM CM 



CO CO i— I LO 



( • ) r j • t 

O CTl LO 
■<Ct- CM CM 



I i— t CM LO 



-O O i— 



OJ > > <U 



cu cl> -*: -* 

r- J3 .— T3 

. — t/t ■<- ro 

<: <c ^ >■ 



o cu en >>, 

1- r- O A3 O 

CU T3 +-»+-> C 

> ro *r- ro T3 





(1) 


n 


0) 


s 


« 




r ) 


ro 


t. 






3 


m 


'ij 


Q I 


t_> 





ro C -i~ 
^- r— V. 
fjj O +-» 



XX 



£? "^ 



± - 



co co «sf co ro kg 



o 2 
« 5 



U3 *3" C\J •— I <~n 



^ <-i <3" r-^ «— < »JO ViD <vj- 



O co <^f- r-» ^ «— i lo 



r4 

go 



CT> CM CO CM LO C\J 



I roun n<j- 



« 5 

P - 
o s 



eg 


EM) 


O 


B 


►"■ 


3 


X 


Q 


u 


"O 


ft, 


in 


P 


o 


(/) 


V) 




Q 


w 


»| 


ffi 




H 


95 

u 



LO LO O LO LO O 

OJLDOHH .— 1 

in in r^ n «^- r^. 

ro ro «^ <j ro co 



CnJ O ^D •— * CnJ 
LO LO O LO «— I 
-d" LD LO «^ <* 



' CnJ Cn LO LO 



o o o o o o o 

co co cr> lo lo o cm 
cm lo co cm on lo r-- 

CNJ CNJ CO ^f CO <=^ <* 



en lo i— i i— i r^ i— t i— t 

CnJ CTt CTi <JD CNJ t— I CNJ 

lo •— i CO lo r-- cx> on 

ro ro «t <^ co ^ in 



w 


M 


w 


< 


en 


■a 


< 


e 


U 


N 




so 


J 


e 


^H 


m 


> 


SO 






u 


u 

c 






© 


■a 
c 

a, 


en 


W 


W 




o 




< 







Ifl 




cu 




i * 




< 



IOCM O \DU3 Cn 



moo LO 



o o o o o o 

t— i CO «3- CNJ LO CNJ 

■^■COOCOro t— i 

CO CO LO CM CNJ CO 



Lnrottooa. 



? 


< 


lO 


m 


r-- 


CO 


m 


Ol 






«* 


to 


u> 


CO 


c ) 


< ) 






•y- 


<* 


<? 


ro 


co 


■3- 




OX 
















c 


















r^ 


. — 1 


a 


00 ro 


00 







r-~ 


11 1 




<T> 


^r 


1 1, 


H 




*— ' 










ro 



^ O ^t \D til r- < CTt 0~i 



a> --h <j- r~-. r-. lo lo o 



o o o o o o LO 

LO co LO CO CNJ o <* 

VO CTi CO LO O CNJ CO 

CNJ CO CNJ CNJ <jD CO CNJ 



ON CO CX> LO LO CM O LO 

CM CT» 1^- i— t CO CO LO CM 

r*- co o> co on co lo r-» 

CO CO C\J CO LO LO «=*■ «^j- 



<U U O 3 S- 



O <U O en c C 

v. >,.cr 3 _^ o •«- 

(U 113 (O >^ U U HI 

JZr- S- (C <D iU J 



89 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN ESTATES AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 

1974-82 



ESTATE CASES 



1 

H 


r 
s 

\ 
\ 
n 
s 



o 

F 



60 



40 



20 



End Pending 

+ 

• 



♦ • ' 




Dispositions 



74 



I 

7S 



70 



77 



I I I I | 
78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 



SPECIAL PROCEEDING CASES 



I 

H 
O 

l 

S 

A 

\ 
I) 
s 



O 

I 



40 



50 



20 



10 



1 ilings »~ 
#-—--""" s -<r Dispositions 

" '"■■-•*■■:-■ 

End Pending 






• 


"'=—--0- — 


^Ji 






1 1 1 


1 


1 1 1 


1 



74 75 76 77 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 



During 1981-82, estate caseloads continued the estab- 
lished increasing trend of the past. Special proceedings 
filings increased by only 1.2% over the 1980-81 filings, but 



dispositions increased by 7.4%, during the same period; 
this disparity is reflected in the decrease in pending cases 
at the end of the 1981-82 year. 



90 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR ESTATES AND SPECIAL 
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1981 -June 30, 1982 



Estates 



Special Proceedings 



District 1 


Pending 

7/1/81 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/82 


Pending 

7/1/81 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/82 


Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 


51 
L89 
134 
464 

44 
255 
L55 


41 
l in 

86 
118 

46 
219 

91 


92 

<0/ 
219 

582 

90 

4 74 

246 


53 

122 
105 

9,9 

30 

227 
82 


57.6 
39.7 
47.9 
15.2 
33.3 
47.8 
33.3 


39 

185 
114 
49 3 
60 
24/ 
164 


12 
88 

49 
83 

15 

70 
28 


21 
52 
71 

8,/ 

21 

110 
46 


33 

140 
120 
] 70 

% 
180 

73 


14 
44 
67 
58 

18 
96 
34 


42.4 
31.4 
55.8 
34.1 
50.0 
53.3 
46.5 


19 
96 
5 3 
112 
18 
84 
39 


District Totals 


1,292 


718 


2,010 


708 


35.2 


1,302 


M 5 


40/ 


752 


331 


44.0 


421 


District 2 


























Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrel 1 
Washington 


64 1 
60 

249 
30 

1 39 


■15 i 
80 

19] 
26 

122 


8,94 

140 

440 
56 

261 


317 

82 
1 94 
20 

128 


35.4 
58.5 
44.0 
35.7 
49.0 


577 

58 

246 

36 

133 


414 

31 

12 3 
10 
54 


1/7 
34 

121 
13 
6] 


69] 
65 

244 
23 

116 


209 
31 

125 
14 
49 


35.3 
47.6 
51.2 
60.8 
42.6 


382 
34 

119 

9 

66 


District Totals 


1,019 


7 72 


1,791 


74 1 


41.3 


1,050 


6 32 


406 


1,038 


428 


41.2 


610 


District 3 


























Carteret 
Craven 
Pamlico 
Pitt 


36.-1 

524 

9] 

59] 


,24 

(85 

68 

5 36 


68 7 

909 

159 

1,127 


293 

417 
76 

502 


42.6 
45.8 
47.7 
44.5 


394 

4 92 

83 

625 


124 

18] 

37 

148 


144 

2 70 

39 

461 


268 

451 

76 

609 


152 

284 

26 

46 7 


56.7 
62.9 
32.8 
76.6 


116 

167 

51 

142 


District Totals 


1,569 


1,313 


2,882 


1,288 


44.6 


1,594 


490 


914 


1,404 


928 


66.0 


4 75 


District 4 


























Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 


69 
431 
431 


307 

48 
326 
',61 


723 

117 
75 7 

797' 


26 i 

47 
279 

3 38 


36.3 

40.1 
36.8 
42.6 


460 

70 

478 

454 


413 

66 

354 

142 


319 

23 

6 31 

266 


732 

89 
885 
408 


28 1 

20 

49/ 

360 


38.3 
22.4 
56.1 
63.7 


451 

69 

388 

148 


District Totals 


1,347 


1,042 


2,389 


92 7 


38.8 


1,462 


975 


1,139 


2,114 


1,058 


50.0 


1,056 


District 5 


























New Hanover 
Pender 


1,175 
182 


764 

142 


1,939 
324 


671 
125 


34.6 
38.5 


1,268 
199 


468 

113 


791 

86 


1,259 
199 


1,046 
82 


83.0 
41.2 


213 
117 


District Totals 


1,357 


906 


2,263 


796 


35.1 


1,467 


681 


877 


1,458 


1,128 


77.3 


330 


District 6 


























Bertie 
Hal ifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 


211 

5 79 
202 
189 


L69 
372 

175 
18/ 


i80 
45 1 

;77 
376 


192 
335 
200 
180 


50.5 
35.2 
53.0 
47.8 


188 
616 
17/ 
196 


86 

469 

109 

8,0 


92 

265 

91 

98 


178 
734 

200 
178 


99 
240 
110 

78 


55.6 
32.6 
55.0 
43.8 


79 
494 

90 
100 


District Totals 


1,181 


903 


2,084 


907 


43.5 


1,177 


744 


546 


1;290 


527 


40.8 


76 3 


District 7 


























Edgecombe 
Nash 
Wi 1 son 


396 
518 

r ,79 


435 

419 
4 30 


831 

937 

1,009 


42/ 
388 
359 


51.3 
41.4 
35.5 


3 01 
549 
650 


219 
372 
326 


2 38 
366 
311 


457 
6 38 
637 


236 
410 
289 


51.6 
64.2 
45.3 


221 
228 

348 


District Totals 


1,493 


1,284 


2,777 


1,174 


42.2 


1,603 


917 


816 


1,732 


936 


53.9 


797 


District 8 


























Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 


111 

409 
861 


123 

460 

64 7 


2 34 

869 

1,528 


118 
507 
5/4 


50.4 
58.3 
37.5 


116 
362 

964 


9 1 

299 
169 


80 
469 
842 


171 

768 

1,211 


101 

462 
748 


59.0 
60.1 
61.7 


70 
306 
463 


District Totals 


1,401 


1,230 


2,631 


1,199 


45.5 


1,432 


759 


1,391 


2,150 


1,311 


60.9 


839 


District 9 


























Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 


367 

243 
352 

26 7 


208 
211 

188 

258 
189 


5/5 
466 
431 

610 

4 56 


169 
231 

179 
241 
232 


29.3 

49.5 
41.5 
39.5 
50.8 


406 
235 
262 
369 
224 


162 
120 
143 
141 
108 


167 
364 
105 
189 
108 


329 
474 
248 

330 
216 


101 

426 
131 
175 
138 


30.6 
89.8 
52.8 
53.0 
63.8 


228 

48 
117 
155 

78 



District Totals 



1,484 1,054 2,538 



1,052 



41.4 



1,486 



6 74 



92 3 



1,597 



971 



60.8 



626 



91 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR ESTATES AND SPECIAL 
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1981 —June 30, 1982 



l Males 



Special Proceedings 



District 10 


Pending 

' 1 SI 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 
6/30/82 


Pending 

7/1/81 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 
6/30/82 




2,869 


1,509 


4.3-8 


1,286 


29.3 


3,092 


1,035 


1,285 


2,320 


1,167 


50.3 


1,153 


District 11 


























Harnett 

Johnston 
Lee 


456 
698 
468 


425 
594 

244 


881 

1,292 

712 


544 
i. Or, 
728 


39.0 
46.9 
32.0 


686 

484 


367 

728: 
299 


255 
591 
221 


622 

9,10 

570 


362 
668 

192 


58.1 
81.5 
36.9 


260 
151 
328 


District Totals 


1,622 


1,263 


2,885 


1,178 


40.8 


1,707 


81' 14 


1,067 


1,961 


1,222 


62.3 


739 


District 12 


























Cumberland 
Hoke 


77: 

138 


806 

109 


1,578 
247 


818 
136 


51.8 
55.0 


760 
111 


485 
56 


1,143 
90 


1,628 
146 


1,121 

87 


68.8 
59.5 


60/ 
59 


District Totals 


910 


915 


1,825 


954 


52.2 


871 


54 1 


1,233 


1,774 


1,208 


68.0 


566 


District 13 


























Bladen 

Brunswick 
Col umbus 


128 
224 

407 


167 
26 1 

204 


295 

49,7 

701 


It/, 
176 
303 


55.9 
36.1 
43.2 


1 iO 
311 
$98 


53 
160 
417 


213 
234 

7/0 


960 
("4 
693 


194 
208 
227 


72.9 
52.7 
32.7 


72 

186 
466 


District Totals 


759 


774 


1,483 


1,44 


43.4 


839 


630 


723 


1,353 


629 


46.4 


724 


District 14 


























Durham 


1,647 


999 


2,646 


1,020 


38.5 


1,626 


228 


1,000 


1,228 


1,001 


81.5 


111 


District 15A 


























Alamance 


679 


700 


1,385 


70 3 


50.7 


682 


212 


4/0 


688 


475 


69.0 


213 


District 15B 


























Chatham 
Orange 


302 

787 


2 30 
4 S9 


5 32 
1,221 


196 

44 3 


36.8 
36.2 


336 
778 


115 

423 


172 
622 


237 
1,045 


100 

550 


44.7 
52.6 


131 
495 


District Total s 


1,084 


669 


1,753 


639 


36.4 


1,114 


538 


744 


1,282 


656 


51.1 


626 


District 16 


























Robeson 
Scotland 


5 38 
2 70 


5/6 
208 


1,114 
478 


616 
188 


55.2 
39.3 


498 
290 


299 
168 


424 
130 


716 
298 


489 

1 )4 


68.2 
44.9 


227 
164 


District Totals 


808 


784 


1,592 


8,04 


50.5 


788 


400 


554 


1,014 


623 


61.4 


391 


District 17A 


























Caswell 
Rockingham 


173 
794 


112 

55 7 


285 
1,357 


135 
599 


47.3 
44.1 


150 
758 


170 
449 


76 
343 


196 
785 


72 

253 


36.7 
32.2 


124 
532 


District Total s 


967 


675 


1,642 


7 'A 


44.7 


908 


509 


419 


981 


325 


33.1 


656 


District 17B 


























Stokes 
Surry 


20 3 

560 


142 
408 


145 

974 


1 8! 

448 


40.0 
45.9 


20/ 
590 


63 

140 


104 
341 


167 
487 


112 
291 


67.0 
59.7 


55 

196 


District Totals 


759 


5 50 


1,319 


586 


44.4 


733 


200 


445 


664 


403 


61.6 


251 


District 18 


























Guilford 


2,797 


1,938 


4,735 


1,761 


37.1 


2,974 


877 


1,896 


2,773 


1,846 


66.5 


927 


District 19A 


























Cabarrus 

Powan 


780 
1,060 


744 

959 


1,524 
2,019 


712 

929 


46.7 
46.0 


812 
1,090 


237 

!I2 


415 
831 


652 
1,163 


388 
758 


59.5 
65.1 


264 

405 


District Totals 


1,840 


1,703 


3,543 


1,641 


46.3 


1,902 


51,0 


1,246 


1,815 


1,146 


63.1 


669 


District 19B 


























"on tgome ry 
Randolph 


226 

5 59 


179 
499 


405 
1,058 


2 !9 

4 90 


59.0 
46.3 


166 
568 


100 

709 


1 ',o 

(9, 


7 to 
537 


20 
323 


8.6 
60.1 


210 
214 



District Totals 



780 



678 



1 ,463 



I?') 



49.8 



/ 14 



102 



405 



76/ 



143 



44.7 



424 



92 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR ESTATES AND SPECIAL 
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1,1981 —June 30, 1982 



Estates 



Special Proceedings 





Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


District 20 


7/1/81 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/82 


7/1/81 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/82 


Anson 


502 


147 


649 


203 


31.2 


446 


123 


67 


190 


48 


25.2 


L42 


Moore 


750 


461 


1,211 


376 


31.0 


835 


L40 


!01 


441 


286 


64.8 


155 


Richmond 


724 


314 


1,038 


251 


24.1 


787 


463 


211 


674 


26 7 


39.6 


407 


Stanly 


1,064 


363 


1,427 


326 


22.8 


1,101 


267 


308 


575. 


293 


50.9 


282 


Union 


562 


374 


936 


329 


35.1 


607 


232 


274 


506 


19', 


38.5 


111 



District Totals 



District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 

District Totals 



District 23 



Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 



District Totals 

District 28 
Buncombe 

District 29 

Henderson 
Mc Dowel 1 
Polk 

Rutherford 
Transylvania 

District Totals 



3,602 1,659 



1,940 



127 

766 
ISO 
693 



1,521 



150 
685 
L34 

625 



5,261 



3,461 



277 
1,451 

284 
1,318 



1,485 



1,447 



L56 
706 
140 

64 / 



28.2 



3,776 



41.8 2,014 



1,736 1,594 3,330 1,649 



56.3 
48.6 
49.2 
49.0 

49.5 



123 
745 
144 

6/1 

1,681 



1,225 



272 



210 

69 

123 

491 



1,161 2,386 1,089 



1,266 



111 
458 
L48 
440 



1,538 1,283 



200 

668 

2 I 7 
663 



165 

190 
126 
401 



1,157 1,648 1,082 



645 

638 
1,066 



387 

370 

62 7 



1,032 
1,008 
1,693 



310 

394 
5 SO 



2,349 1,384 3,733 1,234 



3,578 2,608 6,186 2,736 



30.0 
39.0 
31.3 

33.0 



722 

614 
1,163 

2,499 



44.2 3,450 



1,653 



1,044 2,697 



1,221 



45.2 



1,476 



203 
462 
369 

1,034 

1,616 

827 



491 
380 

4/4 



694 

842 
843 



6 10 
640 
474 



1,345 2,379 1,524 



2,319 3,935 2,100 



WOO 



1,727 



<)f,4 



7/2 



815 1,587 



2,104 1,257 3,361 



684 
316 
209 
443 
388 



666 

207 
166 
378 
150 



1,150 
523 
374 

821 
5 38 



762 



1,367 



475 
189 

1 64 
407 

8') 



48.0 



40.6 



41.3 
36.1 
41.1 
49.5 
16.5 



826 



1,994 



676 
334 

22ii 
4 14 
449 



220 



7 36 



706 



926, 



957 1,692 



665 



902 



45.6 1,297 



83.4 



82.5 
58.3 
58.0 
71.2 

65.6 



73.4 
64.1 
56.2 

64.0 



53.3 



55.8 



71.8 



53.3 



269 



36 
2 78 

91 
162 

666 



Alleghany 


96 


82 


178 


85 


47.7 


93 


16 


59 


75 


59 


78.6 


16 


Ashe 


138 


184 


322 


166; 


49.0 


164 


36 


1 1 9 


166 


10/ 


69.0 


48 


Wi 1 kes 


326 


24 1 


60 7 


234 


41.2 


333 


J32 


433 


765 


368 


48.1 


39 7 


Yadkin 


268 


207 


4 76 


228 


48.0 


34/ 


68 


148 


216 


1 i6 


62.9 


80 


District Totals 


828 


714 


1,542 


705 


45.7 


837 


452 


76,9 


1,211 


670 


55.3 


641 


District 24 


























Avery 


127 


88 


215 


81 


37.6 


134 


78 


LOO 


1 78 


102 


57.3 


76 


Madison 


1 54 


101 


266 


86 


33.7 


169 


7] 


48 


16) 


60 


42.0 


69 


Mitchell 


415 


115 


6 30 


92 


17.3 


438 


77 


69 


140 


43 


29.4 


103 


Watauga 


258 


128 


S86 


147 


38.0 


239 


119 


146 


264 


118 


44.6 


146 


Yancey 


116 


L06 


222 


78 


35.1 


144 


61 


70 


111 


64 


48.8 


67 


District Totals 


1,070 


6 38 


1,608 


484 


30.0 


1,124 


406 


432 


838 


37 7 


44.9 


461 


District 25 



























184 
102 
369 

865 



1,835 



76 3 



Cleveland 


493 


640 


1,033 


4 70 


45.4 


56 3 


1 30 


602 


6 32 


471 


74.5 


161 


Lincoln 


2 79 


275 


554 


292 


52.7 


262 


90 


204 


2 94 


194 


65.9 


1 00 



261 



/90 



110 


278 


388 


2 3/ 


61.0 


151 


205 


189 


394 


166 


39.5 


238 


19 


74 


9 3 


66 


70.9 


27 


268 


314 


682 


283 


48.6 


249 


182 


108 


290 


36 


12.4 


264 



1,940 1,466 3,406 1,314 



38.5 2,092 



784 



963 1,747 



7/8 



44.5 



969 



93 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR ESTATES AND SPECIAL 
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 









Estates 












Special Proceedings 








Pending 




Total 






% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 






% Caseload 


Pending 




7 1 81 


Filed 


Caseload 


Di 


sposed 


Disposed 


6/30/82 


7/1/81 


Piled 


Caseload 


D 


isposed 


Disposed 


6/30/82 


District 30 






























■ 


J 10 


L33 


44 3 




83 


18.7 


J60 


48 


92 


141) 




64 


45.7 


76 


. 


41 


47 


88 




;4 


50.0 


44 


17 


54 


5] 




(i, 


70.5 


15 




69 


28 


97 




24 


24.7 


73 


21 


27 


48 




23 


47.9 


25 


Haywood 


483 


330 


813 




396 


48.7 


417 


200 


??9 


4;") 




248 


57.8 


181 


Jackson 


358 


157 


515 




104 


20.1 


41 1 


1 12 


117 


249 




79 


31.7 


1 70 


Macon 


J57 


L53 


510 




11? 


21.9 


598 


279 


197 


476 




19? 


40.3 


284 


Swain 


138 


55 


193 




53 


27.4 


140 


59 


41 


100 




47 


47.0 


53 


District Totals 


1,756 


90 3 


2,659 




816 


30.6 


1,843 


756 


737 


1,493 




689 


46.1 


804 


State Totals 


53,007 


37,838 


90,845 


36 


,691 


40.3 


54,154 


21,992 


31,673 


53,665 


30 


,784 


57.3 


22,881 



94 



CASELOAD TRENDS OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

1972-1982 



80 



I 

II 
o 

u 

s 

A 
N 
D 

S 





I 



c 

A 
S 
E 

S 



60 



40 



2(1 




Filings 



' "* Ending Pending 



72 



7;< 



M 



75 



76 



11 



78 



78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 



Criminal superior case filings increased by only 1.3% 
during 1981-82, with a comparably small increase in dis- 
positions of 0.9%. Trends among criminal cases in the 



superior courts are determined largely by felony cases, 
which substantially outnumber misdemeanor appeal 
cases. 



95 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1981 -June 30, 1982 



Felonies 



District 1 

.' h : .> a n 

Curri tuck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

ict Totals 

District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 

District Totals 

District 3 

Carteret 
Craven 

Paml ico 
Pitt 

District Totals 

District 4 

Dupl in 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 

District Totals 

District 5 

New Hanover 
Pender 

District Totals 

District 6 

Bertie 
Hal i fax 
Hertford 
Northampton 

District Totals 

District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 

District Totals 

net 8 

Greene 

Lenoi r 

ct Totals 
Dist r 

i 

ict Totals 



Pending 

" 1 SI 



9 
64 
12 

■i 

162 



175 



m 



372 



2 3 3 



26 i 



OOO 



Filed 

35 

10 3 

118 
55 

341 
95 

704 



Q7 


279 


7 


33 


47 


190 


6 


51 


18 


1 30 



68,3 



52 


099 


98 


603 


23 


62 


133 


700 



1,673 



1,807 



70 


113 


17 


305 


■ 3 


1 19 


23 


73 



700 



43 


10 3 


87 


577 


133 


440 



1,200 



37 


102 


98 


406 


93 


759 



1,267 



82 


181 


95 


192 


5'* 


226 


2 1 3 


!23 


94 


42 



Total % Caseload Pending 

Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/82 



0'. 
22 
28 
17 
60 
9 



40 


34 


80.9 


111 


86 


77.4 


l.i, 


44 


66.6 


182 


154 


84.6 


67 


5 


74.6 


76 


216 


78.2 


100 


11 1 


92.6 



860 



697 



376 


090 


77.1 


40 


33 


82.5 


2 37 


178 


75.1 


5/ 


35 


61.4 


148 


94 


63.5 



858 



30 



1,979 1,442 



2,179 1,750 



9 3 i 



704 



1,463 1,170 



73.4 



72.8 



75.4 



79.9 



169 



7 
59 
22 

04 

228 



351 


064 


75.2 


87 


701 


49/ 


70.8 


0O4 


85 


51 


60.0 


i4 


0,40 


6 30 


74.8 


212 



537 



34 


396 


4 30 


(OH 


85.5 


60 


1 


4 ■; 


44 


41 


93.1 


3 


266 


1,270 


1,536 


1,242 


80.8 


294 


90 


550 


640 


515 


80.4 


125 


19] 


2,259 


2,650 


2,166 


81.7 


4 0,4 


16 1 


1,656 


2,017 


1,653 


81.9 


164 


11 


151 


162 


97 


59.8 


65 



40O 



183 


126 


68.8 


57 


512 


40 1 


78.3 


1 11 


140 


1 00 


70.4 


40 


9i, 


77 


80.2 


19 



229 



000 


1 0,4 


81.4 


42 


004 


04 1 


81.7 


101 


573 


44 1 


77.3 


130 



293 



139 


93 


66.9 


40 


004 


4 10 


82.5 


88 


852 


638 


74.8 


014 


495 


1,147 


76.7 


348 


263 


233 


88.5 


30 


287 


006 


78.3 


62 


0O,5 


207 


72.6 


78 


5 16 


384 


71.6 


10,' 


136 


123 


90.4 


13 







Misdemeanors 






Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


7/1/81 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/82 


8 


46 


54 


10 


64.8 


10 


6o 


oi ; 


OO'I 


:.\- 


82.5 


47 


4 


IHO 


228 


ioo 


85.5 


33 


89 


322 


411 


307 


74.6 


104 


15 


73 


00 


76 


86.3 


12 


61 


587 


648 


061 


85.0 


97 


27 


109 


1 o, 


100 


88.2 


16 



64 3 



004 



1,507 1,172 



77.7 






304 



47 
23 
36 
12 
13 

1 il 



(4 

21 

8 

o,o 

145 



29 
3 

10 

7 
57 



10') 
40 

140 



38 
81 

14 
55 

188 



34 

oo 
83 

202 



10 
014 
93 

10 



00 1 
90 

140 

179 
50 

666 



1,530 



483 



O'OO 



351 



512 



000 



1,416 



1,834 1,506 



(,14 



96 1 



40!', 



700 



1,104 



19 ', 



7 36 



166 



51 i 



ooo 



1,632 1,312 



82.1 



100 


04 1 


loo 


65.8 


if, 


59 


27 


45.7 


101 


137 


74 


54.0 


62 


74 


61 


68.9 


HO 


101 


0,1 


80.1 



64.0 



76.5 



0,0, 


117 


116 


99.1 


13 


10 


13 


81.2 


1014 


ooo 


1/1 


84.6 


66 


73 


Oi, 


90.4 



1.7 



73.2 



061 


00,6 


044 


85.6 


266 


0,1 


284 


80.9 


385 


468 


370 


79.4 



81.5 



80.3 



300, 



83 

3? 
6 3 
3 
OO 

221 



82 


110 


04 


81.0 


?? 


260 


281 


219 


77.9 


6? 


55 


63 


57 


90.4 


6 


419 


501 


166 


73.0 


1 16 



006 



1 
3 

U 
7 

4? 



864 


0/1 


770 


79.1 


00 1 


98 


1 10, 


104 


75.3 


34 


ooo 


1,111 


874 


78.6 


237 


77 


116 


80 


69.5 


35 


10 


313 


225 


71.8 


88 


104 


138 


94 


68.1 


44 


79 


1 14 


114 


85.0 


00 



107 



41 
67 

96 

004 



76 


95 


57 


60.0 


38 


775 


879 


710 


80.7 


169 


566 


658 


645 


82.8 


113 



300 



,■:■/ 


428 


100 


91.1 


30 


186 


0/6 


00 3 


73.5 


7 3 


203 


149 


230 


65.9 


110 


285 


41,4 


308 


66.3 


166 


0,0, 


1 01 


101 


87.6 


17 



989 



1,655 1,252 



75.6 



403 



96 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 









Felonies 










Misdemeanors 






District 10 


Pending 

7/1/81 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/82 


Pending 

7/1/81 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/82 


Wake 


1,067 


3,196 


4,263 


3,001 


70.3 


1,262 


467 


2,252 


2,719 


2,243 


82.4 


476 


District 11 


























Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 


18 
24 
6] 


227 
J26 

293 


245 

i00 
354 


203 
313 
209 


82.8 
89.4 
59.0 


42 

37 

145 


12 
26 

?6 


140 
1 35 


152 
23S 

1 6 1 


126 
194 
119 


82.8 
83.2 
73.9 


26 
39 
42 


District Totals 


103 


846 


949 


725 


76.3 


224 


64 


4!;:'' 


646 


439 


80.4 


107 


District 12 


























Cumberland 
Hoke 


506 
34 


1,265 
173 


1,771 
207 


1,371 
179 


77.4 
86.4 


400 
28 


122 
29 


645 

75 


767 
104 


689 

8,4 


89.8 
80.7 


78 

20 


District Totals 


540 


1,438 


1,978 


1,550 


78.3 


428 


151 


720 


871 


773 


88.7 


98 


District 13 


























Bladen 

Brunswick 
Columbus 


28 
79 

70 


139 
2 34 
254 


167 
3] ! 
324 


87 
154 
234 


52.0 
49.2 
72.2 


80 
159 
90 


41 
38 
90 


121 
185 
255 


162 
223 

345 


110 
17 3 
275 


67.9 
77.5 
79.7 


52 
50 
70 


District Totals 


1/7 


627 


804 


475 


59.0 


3? 9 


160 


561 


730 


558 


76.4 


172 


District 14 


























Durham 


366 


1,215 


1,581 


1,262 


79.8 


319 


108 


242 


350 


235 


67.1 


115 


District 15A 


























Alamance 


144 


757 


901 


668 


74.1 


233 


116 


504 


680 


48 3 


71.0 


197 


District 15B 


























Chatham 
Orange 


54 

40 


104 

350 


IV, 
440 


108 
385 


68.3 
87.5 


50 
55 


,'0 

38 


35 
91 


55 
129 


48 
113 


87.2 
87.5 


7 

16 


District Totals 


L44 


454 


598 


493 


82.4 


105 


58 


126 


184 


161 


87.5 


23 


District 16 


























Robeson 
Scotland 


172 
99 


89 J 

219 


1,065 
318 


823 
202 


77.2 
63.5 


242 

116 


75 
92 


340 
123 


424 

6 16 


352 

1?? 


83.0 
56.7 


72 
9 3 


District Totals 


271 


1,112 


1,383 


1,025 


74.1 


358 


167 


472 


6 30 


4 74 


74.1 


105 


District 17A 


























Caswell 
Rockingham 


13 
181 


91 

680 


104 
86 1 


53 
726 


50.9 

84.3 


51 
135 


19 
L06 


65 

4 44 


8,4 

550 


66 
436 


66.6 
79.2 


28 

114 


District Totals 


194 


771 


965 


779 


80.7 


186 


1,", 


509 


634 


49,' 


77.6 


14? 


District 17B 


























Stokes 
Surry 


21 
145 


111 
5 71 


1 J2 
719 


94 

4.7 


71.2 
59.3 


38 
292 


so 
220 


143 

600 


193 

810 


131 
61? 


67.8 
62.5 


62 
307 


District Totals 


166 


685 


85] 


521 


61.2 


330 


270 


742 


1,012 


64 3 


63.5 


S69 


District 18 


























Gui 1 ford 


























Greensboro 
High Point 


704 
221 


2,461 
681 


3,165 
902 


2,272 
649 


71.7 
71.9 


893 
253 


110 

4', 


4 16 

278 


646 

323 


409 
2 36 


74.9 
73.0 


137 
87 


District Totals 


925 


3,142 


4,067 


2,921 


71.8 


1,146 


155 


714 


869 


645 


74.2 


224 


District 19A 


























Cabarrus 
Rowan 


190 
204 


519 

540 


709 
744 


609 


83.3 
81.8 


1 1 8 
135 


263 
166 


/,"6 
688 


989 
754 


764 
630 


77.2 
83.5 


225 
L24 


District Totals 


394 


1,059 


1,453 


1,200 


82.5 


253 


4/o 


1,314 


1,743 


1,394 


79.9 


54 9 


District 19B 


























Montgomery 
Randolph 


46 
253 


204 
731 


250 

984 


L98 

773 


79.2 
78.5 


52 

211 


55 

166 


228 
562 


283 
727 


188, 
5 76 


66.4 
78.6 


95 

166 



District Totals 



299 



935 



1,234 



9/1 



78.6 



263 



220 



790 



1,010 



/!",() 



75.2 



260 



97 



Davie 



District 23 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 











Felonies 










Misdemeanors 








Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


District 


20 


7 1 81 

30 


Filed 

176 


Caseload 

306 


Disposed 

187 


Disposed 

90.7 


6/30/82 

10 


7/1/81 
37 


Filed 

168, 


Caseload 

106 


Disposed 

170 


Disposed 

87.1 


6/30/82 






85 


■' 




1 30 


MO 


640 


492 


76.8 


14 8 


69 


i05 


174 


512 


83.4 


68 






50 


601 


681 


49 7 


76.3 


154 


46 


833 


417 


8,1 


80.3 


86 






83 


MM 


481 


382 


79.4 


09 


18 \ 


159 


48.8 


411/ 


84.4 


76 






SO 


595 


675 


534 


82.0 


131 


59 


6/8 


63J 


460 


71.3 


181 


District 


Totals 


3"3 


2,280 


2,653 


2,112 


79.6 


541 


333 


1,786 


2,119 


1,690 


79.7 


489 



District 21 

1,687 2,059 1,790 86.9 269 439 1,836 2,275 1,902 83.6 373 

District 22 

Alexander 126 188 73 57.0 55 17 137 154 134 87 20 

402 475 414 87.1 61 104 380 484 451 93.1 33 

19 101 120 88 73.3 32 



2 


131, 


188 


73 


57.0 


65 


7 8 


4(13 


4 75 


414 


87.1 


61 


4 3 


87 


no 


109 


83.8 


81 


101 


641 


648 


411 


64.0 


3 31 



Iredell 101 541 642 411 64.0 231 99 456 555 465 83.7 90 

District Totals 219 1,156 1,375 1,007 73.2 368 239 1,074 1,313 1,138 86.6 175 



Al leghany 




5 


6 1 


66 


6 7 


86.3 


9 


11 


40 


51 


40 


78.4 


11 


Ashe 




84 


74 


98 


59 


60.2 


39 


37 


71 


108, 


68, 


62.9 


40 


Wilkes 




188 


816 


3 38 


815 


63.6 


123 


165 


■81 i 


606: 


',6 \ 


69.4 


155 


Yadkin 




50 


189 


179 


Hi 


62.0 


68 


57 


117 


174 


131 


69.5 


53 


District 


Totals 


801 


480 


681 


448 


64.9 


8 39 


8 70 


671 


84 1 


688 


69.2 


259 


District 


34 


























Avery 




32 


46 


78 


85 


32.0 


5 3 


35 


10 


35 


14 


40.0 


21 


Madison 




40 


52 


48 


74 


80.4 


18 


13 


88 


41 


27 


65.8 


14 


Mitchell 




33 


59 


98 


56 


60.8 


36 


5 


14 


19 


18 


94.7 


1 


Watauga 




67 


176 


243 


125 


51.4 


118 


14 


8/ 


41 


36 


63.4 


15 


Yancey 




20 


78, 


88 


36 


62.0 


22 


80 


86 


41: 


30 


65.2 


16 


District 


Totals 


198 


371 


563 


316 


56.1 


84 7 


77 


105 


188 


118 


63.1 


6 7 


District ; 


75 



























125 


86 3 


883 


280 


72.1 


108 


60 


290 


350 


2 39 


68.2 


111 


37 3 


706 


1,079 


899 


83.3 


180 



38 


19!', 


8 36 


188 


77.1 


54 


48 


800 


248 


211 


85.0 


37 


167 


460 


617 


514 


83.3 


103 



Burke 

Caldwell 
'. a tawba 

District Totals 1,259 1,817 1,418 78.0 399 243 858 1,101 907 82.3 194 

District 26 

Mecklenburg 843 2(7 g 6 3,639 2,634 72.3 1,005 223 767 990 784 79.1 206 

District 27A 

186 1,188 1,374 1,027 74.7 347 76 727 803 643 80.0 160 

District 27B 

Cleveland 91 435 526 396 75.2 130 34 180 214 173 80.8 41 

Llncoln 22 180 202 187 92.5 15 11 78 89 80 89.8 9 

District Totals 113 615 728 583 80.0 145 45 258 303 253 83.4 50 
District 28 

rbe 224 1,400 1,624 1,027 63.2 597 58 452 510 386 75.6 124 
District 29 

, ! /ania 

3tals 1,347 1,706 1,114 65.2 592 146 459 605 429 70.9 176 



92 


4 J] 


62 3 


362 


69.2 


161 


59 


198 


36/ 


800 


77.8 


6/ 


8 3 


151 


174 


126 


72.4 


48 


95 


4 66 


591 


8,1 


61.0 


8 30 


80 


81 


161 


65 


40.3 


96 



24 


%' 


116 


79 


68.1 


37 


19 


66 


86 


6)1 


80.0 


17 


22 


22 


44 


28, 


63.6 


16 


62 


240 


308 


230 


76.1 


72 


19 


19 


58 


24 


41.3 


34 



98 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1981 —June 30, 1982 











Felonie 












Misdemeanors 








Pending 




Total 






% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 






7/1/81 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/82 


7/1/81 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/82 


District 


30 




























Cherokee 




49 


33 


82 




46 


56.0 


16 


14 


58 


72 


38 


52.7 


34 


Clay 




7 


25 


32 




13 


40.6 


19 


4 


11 


15 


7 


46.6 


8 


Graham 




5 


29 


34 




8 


23.5 


26 


31 


24 


55 


39 


70.9 


16 


Haywood 




L86 


34 3 


52 9 




382 


72.2 


1 4 / 


79 


232 


(11 


236 


75.8 


75 


Jackson 




85 


L80 


265 




211 


79.6 


54 


55 


72 


12/ 


8 3 


65.3 


44 


Macon 




37 


85 


122 




76 


62.2 


4(3 


44 


39 


83 


55 


66.2 


28 


Swain 




18 


34 


52 




40 


76.9 


12 


1(3 


27 


37 


29 


78.3 


8 


District 


Totals 


387 


729 


1,116 




776 


69.5 


340 


237 


46 ! 


700 


48/ 


69.5 


213 


State Totals 


11,490 


42,802 


54,292 


40 


,715 


74.9 


13,577 


6,943 


26,805 


33,748 


26,468 


78.4 


7,280 



99 



METHODS OF DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL CASES 

1981-1982 



FELONIES 



OTHER 



GUILTY PI I A 




DISMISSALS 



NOI (illll.l Y PI I A 



MISDEMEANORS 



()l II IK 



(.LI I I Y PI I A 




MSMISSA1 S 



NOI (,LII I Y PI I A 



Guilt} picas constitute the largest disposition category for 
criminal superior court cases. I he dismissal category, as 
graphed here, includes speedy trial dismissals and cases 



dismissed by the district attorney, both with and without 
leave. 



100 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 



Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 
District 2 



Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 

District Totals 

District 3 

Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 

District Totals 

District 4 

Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 

District Totals 

District 5 

New Hanover 
Pender 

District Totals 

District 6 

Bertie 
Halifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 

District Totals 

District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 

District Totals 

District 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 

District Totals 



Plea of 

Total Guilty 

Dispositions (Judge) 



Plea of 
Not Guilty Dismissal 
(Jury) by DA. 



34 

86 

44 

154 

50 

216 

113 

597 



1,442 



704 



1,170 



24 
46 

?K 

95 

30 

137 

43 

403 



80." 



2,166 1,032 



340 



6 30 





13 
10 

2 
10 
23 
18 

76 



/() 



1 80 



;"! 



53 



9 

26 

5 

48 
6 

50 
43 

187 



Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissal 












290 


199 


52 


29 





33 


24 


3 


4 





178 


137 


17 


19 





35 


8 





4 





94 


66 


6 


5 





630 


434 


78 


61 





264 


110 


9 


142 





497 


259 


26 


204 





61 


19 


4 


25 





630 


4 14 


31 


L59 






', 50 



842 



1,653 


1,073 


89 


44/ 





97 


62 


11 


19 





1,750 


1,135 


100 


466 





126 


66 


5 


49 





40] 


1/') 


10 


203 





100 


54 


10 


28 





77 


4 1 


4 


24 






in/i 



452 



Other 

1 
1 
1 

9 
4 
6 
9 

31 



10 
2 
5 

23 

1/ 

57 



3 
26 

40 



368 


209 


41 


92 





26 


41 


18 


6 


16 





2 


1,242 


497 


86 


608 


1 


60 


515 


108 


48 


126 





33 



111 



44 
5 

49 



31 



184 


100 


16 


65 





3 


54 3 


269 


27 


227 





20 


443 


261 


10 


L60 





12 



35 



93 


41 


5 


43 





4 


416 


147 


62 


197 





10 


638 


312 


74 


;"■ <,' 





20 



Plea of 
Total Guilty 

Dispositions (Judge) 



35 

;>;v 
195 
J07 
76 
661 
120 

1,506 



393 



736 



«,6 



770 

L04 

874 



513 



900 



18 

7 3 
164 
1/6 

54 
1/4 

49 

697 



229 



405 



14 l 



498 
75 

573 



203 



484 



Plea of Speedy 

Not Guilty Dismissal Trial 
(Jury) by D.A. Dismissal 



1 
9 

6 
17 

1 
18 

7 



58 



160 


L24 


21 


27 


9 


8 


l'\ 


41 


9 


51 


20 


7 


81 


36 


11 



66 



94 


46 


3 


219 


145 


It. 


57 


35 


i) 


<M, 


l/ r ) 


26 



46 



IK. 


6,4 


n 


13 


9 


1 


1/1 


4(1 


27 


66 


36 


6 



42 



41) 
6 

46 



80 


.'/ 


2 


.'26 


78 


10 


9.4 


46 


2 


114 


49 


6 



20 



I 1 4 4 


113 


16 


284 


161 


6 


372 


210 


11 



33 



200 



11 


3 


2 





') 





6 





19 






47 



161 



75 



161 
1/ 

168, 



,"06 



255 



Other 



6 





10 


23 





11/ 


31 


o 


5 


39 





76 


9 





1/' 


73 





l'H(, 


19 





46 



661 



16 

18, 
16 

68, 



1 8 





?/ 


48 





10 


9 





13 


86 





75 



L25 



1/ 





3? 


1 





2 


60 





64 


7 





18 



106 



81 
6 

87 



32 





19 


106 


n 


31 


31 





12 


37 





22 



84 



42 





73 


1 





26 


22 





29 



128 



57 


24 


3 


17 





13 


7 10 


197 


25 


846 





242 


545 


300 


27 


164 





64 



1,147 



600 



14 1 



472 



34 



1,312 



681 



66 



41/ 



119 



Mil 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 









Felonies 










Misdemeanors 










Plea of 


Plea of 




Speedy 






Plea of 


Plea of 




Speedy 






Total 


Guilty 


Not Guilty 


Dismissal 


Trial 




Total 


Guilty 


Not Guilty 


Dismissal 


Trial 




District 9 


Dispositions 


(Judge) 


(Jury) 


by D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


Dispositions 


(Judge) 


(Jury) 


by D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


Frankl in 


2 3 3 


135 


5 


77 





16 


S90 


2 36 


6 


116 





33 


. 


::b 


ioo 


17 


02 





16 


203 


1 08 


5 


59 





31 


Person 


207 


113 


10 


/I 





4 


2 30 


138 


11 


6 1 





18 




384 


1Mb 


16 


171 





11 


>(>8 


176 


7 


93 





32 


Warren 


123 


79 


7 


35 





2 


121 


68 


1 


37 





15 


District Totals 


1,172 


6 1 1 


55 


446 


9 


49 


1,252 


726 


30 


368 





129 


District 10 


























rt'a- e 


3,001 


1,421 


117 


1,404 


2 


57 


2,243 


718 


60 


645 





820 


District 11 


























Harnett 


203 


138 


14 


44 





7 


1 26 


84 


9 


22 





11 


Johnston 


313 


214 


12 


80 





7 


104 


110 


1 >, 


45 





17 


Lee 


209 


140 


4 


52 





13 


110 


57 


5 


24 





33 


District Totals 


725 


492 


30 


176 





2/ 


4 39 


260 


:? 


91 





61 


District 12 


























Cumberland 


1,371 


894 


92 


32 7 





58 


h84 


3 76 


45 


133 





136 


Hoke 


179 


119 


8 


21 





31 


84 


41 


3 


14 





6 


District Totals 


1,550 


1,013 


100 


348 





8,0 


773 


417 


48 


167 





141 


District 13 


























Bladen 


37 


40 


28 


11 





8 


110 


62 


10 


26 





12 


Brunswick 


154 


98 


9 


38 





9 


1/3 


89 


7 


2 1 





54 


Col umbus 


2 34 


137 


18 


65 





14 


2/5 


101 


26 


86 





62 


District Totals 


475 


275 


55 


114 





31 


658 


252 


43 


136 





128 


District 14 



























Durham 1,262 705 79 450 1 27 235 70 18 96 51 

District 15A 

ilamance 668 303 43 289 33 483 210 51 188 34 

District 15B 

Chatham 108 73 9 15 11 48 22 4 11 11 

Orange 385 169 33 167 16 113 37 13 27 36 

District Totals 493 242 42 182 27 161 59 17 38 47 

District 16 



Robeson 
Scotland 


823 

202 


616 
150 


129 
17 


!6 

22 






42 
4 


352 

122 


156 

94 


66 
7 


20 
18 


3 




108 
3 


District Totals 


1,025 


775 


146 


68 





46 


4/4 


250 


72 


38 


3 


111 


District 17A 


























Caswel 1 
Rockingham 


6 3 
726 


46 
524 


3 

2 7 


3 

164 






1 
11 


56 

4 16 


31 
258 



16 


6 
76 






13 

87 


District Totals 


779 


5 70 


30 


16/ 





12 


402 


289 


21 


82 





100 


District 17B 




























94 

42/ 


70 

134 


13 

12 


8 

6;: 







3 

13 


131 

512 


66 
239 


18 
6 


14 
6 1 






33 
216 


■ ict Totals 


621 


4 04 


25 


76 





K, 


643 


(06 


24 


65 





249 


District 18 
"jut 1 ford 



























>Perisboro ? ,272 1,445 99 638 90 409 149 15 135 110 

High Point 649 442 24 163 20 236 133 14 30 59 

District Totals 2,921 1,887 123 801 110 645 282 29 165 169 



102 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 



Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



District 19A 



Plea of Plea of Speedy 

Total Guilty Not Guilty Dismissal Trial 

Dispositions (Judge) (Jury) by D.A. Dismissal 



Other 



Plea of Plea of Speedy 

Total Guilty Not Guilty Dismissal Trial 

Dispositions (Judge) (Jury) by D.A. Dismissal 



District Totals 

District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredel 1 

District Totals 
District 23 



Alleghany 




Ashe 




Wilkes 




Yadkin 




District 


Totals 


District 


24 


Avery 




Madison 




Mitchell 




Watauga 




Yancey 




District 


Totals 


District 


25 



Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 



2,112 1,112 



1,790 1,359 



95 



896 



P 96 



40 



40 



1,690 



804 



!4 



7 3 


'„", 


2 


9 





4 


4 14 


2/6 


2 3 


70 





45 


109 


72 


8 


13 





16 


411 


261 


17 


92 





41 


007 


66 7 


50 


1 84 





106 


57 


46 


6 


5 





1 


59 


43 


3 


3 





10 


215 


85 


21 


75 





34 


HI 


64 


1? 


26 





9 



1,902 


1,254 


39 


134 


5 3 


3 


451 


168 


10 


88 


39 


6 


465 


179 


2 


1,138 


429 


21 


40 


22 


4 


68 


26 


4 


35 3 


106 


16 


121 


63 


4 



442 



238 



41 



109 



26 


15 


74 


L3 


66 


il 


25 


46 


36 


21 



2 


8 





3 


64 





3 


21 





11 


64 





5 


9 






316 



126 



24 



156 



280 
2 39 
899 


111 

91 
390 


•:0 
14 
59 


1 S2 
12 7 
4 32 







1,418 


692 


103 


(,0 1 





2,634 


1,373 


1.74 


996 


30 



1,027 



5 SO 



76 



375 



64 





4 
1 

'! 
1 

10 



7 

7 

18 

32 



61 



4 3 



68,2 



14 
2 7 
18 
26 
30 

115 



2 16 



28 



7 


1 


9 








1 


6 


5 


4 


3 



45 



10 



18,2 


72 


13 


211 


114 


11 


514 


180 


21 



907 



784 



64 ) 



m 



',60 



341 



45 



71 



76 



624 



3 I 6 



137 









3 





5 











7 






36 



252 



2 1 7 



114 



Other 



Cabarrus 
Rowan 


59] 

609 


(90 
i/6 


31 
2 7 


151 

195 






19 
11 


764 
6 30 


340 
313 


22 
17 


208 

199 






194 
101 


District Totals 


1,200 


70 6 


68 


346 





30 


1,394 


65 3 


39 


40/ 





295 


District 19B 


























Montgomery 
Randolph 


108 
773 


141 
S46 


16 
24 


36 
120 



1 



82 


188 
572 


8 7 
316 


13 
8 


33 
J 39 






55 
109 


District Totals 


971 


487 


40 


155 


1 


88 


760 


40 3 


21 


172 





164 


District 20 


























Anson 
Moore 
Richmond 
Stanly 
Un i on 


L87 
492 

4'!/ 

382 

554 


102 
2 78 
245 
238 
249 


1! 
7 

16 
13 
18 


69 

188 
232 

126 

281 









5 

19 
5 
5 
6 


170 
312 
351 

40/ 
450 


7 7 
161 
14 3 
225 

198 


4 
4 
5 

10 
11 


49 

77 

111 

121 

166 









4 
70 
92 
51 
75 



328 



293 



29 





4 9 


92 





191 


16 





28 


118 





166 


254 





434* 


14 








4 





35 


99 





132 


20 





34 



20! 



6 
5 
2 
6 
6 

25 



5 7 





40 


5 5 





31 


140 


1 


172 



24 3 



128 



112 



Cleveland 
Lincoln 


396 
187 


247 
84 


31 
33 


192 
6 3 






16 
7 


173 
80 


70 
84 


14 
7 


40 
27 






4 9 
22 


District Totals 


583 


331 


64 


165 





23 


253 


94 


21 


67 





71 



103 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 

Felonies Misdemeanors 



District 28 



Plea of Plea of Speedy Plea of Plea of Speedy 

Total Guilty Not Guilty Dismissal Trial Total Guilty Not Guilty Dismissal Trial 

Dispositions (Judge) (Jury) by DA. Dismissal Other Dispositions (Judge) (Jury) by D.A. Dismissal Other 



79 


32 


3 


68 


('. 


5 


28 


12 


2 


230 


113 


L5 


,'4 


10 


4 



14 


(i 


iO 


12 


o 


L6 


10 





4 


33 





69 


6 





4 



Buncombe 1,027 708 39 162 118 386 207 25 42 112 

District 29 

Henderson 362 240 18 87 1 16 

McDowell 200 122 14 47 17 

Polk 126 73 2 51 

Rutherford 361 193 38 119 11 

Transylvania 65 35 9 18 3 

District Totals 1,114 663 81 322 1 47 429 202 29 75 123 

District 30 

Cherokee 46 16 7 16 7 38 23 2 9 4 

Clay 13 83200 720 401 

860200 39 12 4 15 08 

Haywood 382 177 14 190 1 236 128 11 94 3 

Jackson 211 110 4 84 13 83 63 19 1 

Macon 76 40 1 17 18 55 27 9 10 9 

Swain 40 24 3 9 4 29 13 4 12 

District Totals 776 381 32 320 43 487 268 26 155 38 

State Totals 40,715 23,309 2,513 13,198 48 1,647 26,468 12,734 1,280 6,374 15 6,065 



104 



OOOnO'-'CMOd'-ioCOOOm 



O O o o cm co •— ■<—<■— "in *d- «d- 



oj ro m t—t o o r-» ■ 



H 

a; 
P 
© 
u 

o 

w S 
fa « 

Poo 

en ~ 
W S 

DC * 



CNj^mmoo^rooN^r- < CO •— < O 

HfOHHCSJN -— ' ■— i CO C\J C\J 






^D^f^CMCOir)c\jinr^iH(\irNr^o in «^f 

CM *-< *3" O «— "O'^-r-.CNjrOCTvCD'— «<d- LO 1^ 
i— t i— i ro c\J <x> 



OOLnLOLOOOOOLnOOOO 



o o 

^t 00 



O^OCnoOdNfOOCOlD 
CsJ CM «-H •— < •— < 



iu3'X>Lor~-cO"=±kO co cm 



OHNCOIO^OCSJNN 



O^LT) M CM 



OOOOOLOOOOO oo 



irnoinN oco<- 1«— i en o r~- t_n 



rfCOojNfOHroN cm co 
o^ «— < cm ud •— i ro tt in r»- r»- 

CM t\JH IDCM 



Nincxjcoi/ir-iCAcri coco 

CMkOOCO.— i<\jO")LD ^t CO 
.-H CM •— < C\J •— < *^3 CO 



OOOOOOOO OO 



OLnrocTuj-^r^rv cm id 



z •- 

cn 

w 

en 

< 



t/3 



si 

c 

*c 

3 

a 

■a 
o 



2 o 

o a. 

Q 



^LniDCM^LD'd'NO'^HD'-iClO 

cocococ\j*d-cr>LOOLor~-.^-iuoi-Hc\j 

C\J MHn CM LT> «— IH 



r-. co 
en o 

CO LO 



■^rTNC^r-iNOkO CSJ^O 

yDcncnrHLDLrifo^ ^j-co 
CM «^j- CM KO CO ^j- r-» 



>— <OOCMCMO'^-OCMOCjnO«— "<— « CTlOO 



fiLnHmn^oooo c-^r 



(SJHrHHOOCTlOl CM" - ' 



O v- 
z ° 

< 

w 

Q 

en 



< 

C 
68 

30 

o 



c 



Z "° 



a a 

w 00 



aii/iococo^tooNiD 



CO o tO O O «— ICO LD I — to 

i— i ro row cooj 



i^y^'d'^jooj^in c\j r^ 
c\j CD •— i inOsj co<J 



w « 
fa u 



z 
o 
fa 
fa 

fa 

fa 
o 

en 

fa 

< 



DC 

< 



OOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO 



«* s 



COCMCM*3-COr-»COCMl 



IDOCTiO ^C\J 



•< tj roN o<- •ininLncsjrsocO'jM idn 

,_ ,-H ,-H r-H t-I CM ,— I ,_. ,— I 



COOiLnNCMrOCO^NCMO^CTikD CT> CO 
HtM^CNJ^CMO'- '<— < CO CT> «—l IC CM 



■2 = 



OOOOOOOOOO OO 



Oi^^ocho^u^Ohn ro n 



UDCOr-.CMCJ^COCMCO^O CO >— I 

COCO CO LO CO CM CM LT> CM CM CM 

CNJ CM 



ICO I </) 1 OO ICO I (/) ICO 



OOOOOLOLDO OO 



uDr^cocncr.c\icM^r 



r-- cm 
co r-- 

CM O 



CO CM 

LO CM 



r— en 



105 



1 ^ o o o «— < CO 



cr> cc cnj o <— i co 



O O vO t— t O ^ UD LO 






<^ O >3- O . 



y: 


s 




- 


=■ 




a 


C 










— 


a 


— 


o 


v 




u 




o 

fN 








X 


ir. 


>e 


o 


if 




■w 






cc 




e 
so 


r 1 ^ 

fa. 9C 




o 


C - 






■J On 




E 


75 ~ 






w g 




Js 


X > 






H « 




■ u 


u 

z •- 




S< 


C/2 c 




"3 


w •= 




c a 


CAS 

sed Du 






, — . o 






CT) !?■ 







OmdOi- < ro o «— * *$■ ro o 



"jDcncocsjoocsjcsj 
>jo csj mlooh 



incMLOCO'Horvjoo 


ro co 






<— < to no i— i f— i i— i 


CO UD 


CM "X> rO LD i£) 


<3- O 



CTi CSJ 
CO CSJ 

ro c\j 



LoinoooooLn o o 



^incMONMtj co csj 



COO'—iCOCSJ'— "LOUD 

US'— < «d- <— i^r--f— (vd 

ro ^h c\J r- i LD 



CsJ CNJ <=3" O l^(M 
CM N tj- (£i *JO CO 
O LO O "JO 



O O O O OLD 



ro co r-. CO en ro 



ro O r--. <3- O <=t 

u~> r-» en o lo r~- 
<aO r--. .— i r^ co 



co»— ir^-vjo-— 'oo^tjo om 
<Njc\j00LOLoroc\j'=d- cr^Ln 



cohncocoooid 

rOC\JCMOC\J«3-«=t'<d- 



OOOOOLDOLO oo 



Lnvor s .^cnanDo , i ld esj 

«=t c-. <d- csj <— irvo *d- co csj 

•— iooco<Ticr>cncoco ocm 

cm csj <— I i— I 



^ohioo^n^j- «^j-ro 

CSjCOOCSJOCnr--i— i Of-H 



ro en 
ro csj 



ro r-. 



OCDOOOLO OO 



^ -^ m rorHkD 



«3- <d- co <3- ro cm 
co «tf- «* co <3- r-. 
t-i est un csj ^ ro 



OOOOCnOOO CTtO 



ro i-H «^- csj c-.ro 



NO^roioro^ 



ro .— i csj lo ko •*? 



O w. 

z ° 

^; ex , 

r\ = « 

A a E 

Q S3 1 



C J. 



>*0000t\)0 



22 .-n 



lOininNkD^ r-.ix> 



CSJ r-H CT> CT* r— I LO , 



r-. «— i csj <o ro ro 



Q 


ex 


z 




< 


Du 






- 


a 


b 


w 



c--ocsjrsjc\jco<^j-^j- moi 

r ^' CM i— I CSJ CO i—l 



oooooooo oo 



o o o o o o 



*d- f— i ^f t— i csj t— i csj^r 



oooooooo oo 



O O O O O O OO 



z « 



cooooHrnq-n ror-. 



ijD CO CT> 1_0 HN 



LDCSJUOCO'— tLOCTiLO t— IIS 



lt> ro o O •— ' O ro CO 






i ro ro ^ <— i lo r-. 

cr> ro csj 

CSJ r-i 



rt ro in -^ <Tt r-. 

ijD O "JD CO CSJ CO 

co csj -cd- csj 



ro <tf- 
cn o 
csj csj 



3 O C 

O ^> O 



■p- +J 
I — t- 



106 



■— i<tioooc\J r-MD 



i cnj «— • lo co 



CO »-h <X> o 







a 




SO 


o o 


lo 


LO 


en 


CO 


LO CO 






E 






r-t f— 1 


r ~* 


CM ^t 


ro 


r-. ld 










oc 




































CAO 






















H 




a, 




e 














M 










CM CNJ 


LO 




, 


C ) 


LO CO 




u 




^ 


CM 


ro 


LD 


ix-> 


LO 


CM CM 


P 




■:.1 




(-4 














© 




u 


















U 






■iVI 


O CM 


ro 


,_, 


o 


«> 


CO LT> 












f-H CM 


cm 


r-. 




l.O 


•* "3" 


pel 








'■O 




1-1 


CM 


CM 


*-< 


CO <^ 


© 




oi; 
< 


















>— « 






















eg; 










O CTi 


LO 


ro 


r— 1 


^T 


LO LO 










LO -— < 


PO 


LT3 




, '., 


LTi LO 


^ 


':-,-: 






o 




CM 


ro 


CO 


CJ 


LO LO 


Ph 






















P 


■%1 




C 

'=3 




O O 


O 


O O 


O 


O LO 


Of) 


mi 




■a 

s 


< 


r-~ co 


en 


,_, 


CM 


ID 


r» CO 




it=1 




cm r-~ 


'i 


If) 


in 


in 


LO LO 


^ 




















H 


> 
























c 




<-* CM 


< i 


Oi 


ro 


i > 


LO CT> 


ed 




c;i 
























< 


CM r-. 


< > 


m 


If) 


in 


■* CM 


Z 






>. 


CO CM 


r-. 


LO 


r-> 


r^ 


r^ r-~ 


r<H 


C 




"3 




ro r^ 


id 


o 


CO LO 


r-~. cm 


fe3 
GO 

< 






o 


Ch LO 








^t 


«d- >-i 


£= 







a. 




■=t 


r-- 


in 


in 


^H CO 


Q 




H 


s 












" 


^^ 


-.-• 




















03 


V) 





















rooJNvOfOrocvjtLtoo 
«^cr>co«^j-roLOLOCri«— icnj 



MCOHHno^HCnHN co <=j- 
CNJUDLO^OO^'d-LOrO'-H io^ 



LO H l£) H O ID (\l ^ "^ LO 

CTir--co«=j-r--cNjcoLO c\j 



OOOOOOOLOOO OO 



r~-<d _ o^c\jcNjLD(Xjr— r~- r-» ro in 



moinroNO'stcorOH c\j cnj 
roairsjoo^cxiocNjN r-- lo 
cnjcocnjcnjcnjcnjcoco.— tr— i i-h cnj 



ro o 

C\J CNJ 
CD "JD 



«— • <d" VO CNJ CNJ O 



CTi vD vO CTi CT> CO 



CO co ij- r>- cn co r-ico 

CO LD CO C\HD LO CT> CO 
<— i r-i >— i ro CNJ 



OOOinoo OO 



vOMDCTtt-trOO LO LO 



COiX>CO^ONCn LO Ol 
O CM «— 1 CT> O <— I CNJ CO 
CMrHCOrHCNJH |-- <=j- 



CO LTUlO h- «^f CNJ 
«3- LO CO CNJ CO CO 
CO CNJ CO CNJ 



O CO co lo CO co 
r- «d- «-h cnj co n 

LT) CO i-H UD CO 



O O O O LO O 



<T> vO CO CNJ O ■— I 



r-icncT>'d- 
n co n co 

CO UD «— ' 



loooooo in o 



OC0>— I LO LO CO CO C\J CM IT) i^DCO 
CNJ e— I <— I CNJ ^ LO 



O >— I CO CO CNJ CO LOCNJ 



CO r—i <T> O CNJ i— I 



:V' : 


S! 






© 


u 

in 


- 


in 


2 

< 


O 

. a 

<; 


si 

u 

s 


o.; 


> 


X) 

c 


u 


e 


W 

Q 




n 
E 


, -, 



O'l 



Q 

< 



e, 

'6 

r: 






co< k or--<d _ o^cr. o~iO^ 



cOLnvtoocno^o 

rH r-l rH (\J H CO 



o^lovO^loi— ten-— t*x> •— i cd 

«H rHOJ CNJ UD 



£ 2 



HtOMnOH 

'-' CvJ LO «* *3 



|J g E 

W * .s 
£^ I 

© 

© 

© 



2 = 



OOOOOO OO 



LOvjocO'^rcnLO r~-ix) 



LD00C0CTt<^-CO COO 
«=]- CO CO «JD >— l «— t «^J-CNJ 

f-H cnj ^h ro ro 



OOOOOOOOOO OO 



«d" CNJ LO O CO CO KO ' 



I O^ CO CO CO 



OltV-sK^ltNCOr-tOm <— I t^f 

COOCOCNJfsjNr^OCO^D oco 

CNJ-^J-r-lt— lr— I rHC\J r- ICNJ CM i— 1 



OCOc\icococT«c\jvOCor^. loco 

<OCOi£i NIN HLDLOHr- 1 CO O 

i— i <— i c-h ro «^ 



^1- fH 

o ^d- 

*d- CNJ 



CNJ V£) 
CNJ «=t 



r^LO'^j-cNjcO'^t cTif^ 



0<d-CNj«d-ro^o lo«^- 



OOOOOO OO 



roNOHCOO loo 

i— • *fr 00 «— ' CO CO CTtCO 

mcOH^oo cTir-^ 

^-1 ,—i <— ( ^H CNJ t— I 



«— I CNJ i 



LO t— I O CO LO «tf* 



CO o r--- ^-t lo <— i 



o O O LO o o 



u_ s: li_ s: ll. 2: 



i— *i- c 



107 



i n i — i k (\j , — i id 



ilOO IDH 



CO C\J CTi CO «— < CO 



1% rH l£) rH CO C\J 



X. 

- 
- 

C 
U 

ft: 

O 

5 

— 90 

ft, - 
— > 00 

fJ ON 

Xj - 

W g 

K > 
* 8 

c/3 2 s 
w •= 

35 

^ in 

,-v o 



co ro o f"^- oo lo lo co 
ro ro co co *— « i— i r- CO 



cnj o uo co ro cr> o cnj 

«— < CNJ LO CO LO LO f*l N 



O O LO o o o o o 



LO O 


o «d- 


<3- r-» 


CO «-« 


ro 


i-H CNJ 



LO LO 


in *— • 


r^ CD r^ CO 


co r-- 


ro lo 


CO CNJ LO LO 


lo 


CNJ <— < 


«— • 



LO O CD O O O 



O O UO O CD O 



^t (^ ro o r-- c-t 



*3- •— * CNJ ^j- 


co lo 


ro n ro tTi 


M3 LO 


*3" CO <3- CNJ 


CO CD 


C\J t-n CO «— 1 


CD CO 


CNJ 


CO ■— I 


f— 1 .—1 


CNJ i- * 



ON LO CO CD CNJ CO 

«— ' CNJ ro lo in N 

CO CNJ CO CNJ 



O O O O O O 



c 


- 
< 


0~> CO CO CO CO CD 


CO lo 


LO LO 
CNJ CD 

o <* 


CO CNJ 

c- <3- 


CO co lo r-- 


m *3- 


LO LO CNJ CO 
CO CO CO CO 

r-- co «— « co 

CNJ «— i 


CD ON 

«3- CNJ 

O t-H 


LO LO LO LO 

CNJ CO CO CO 

OCTiON 


CNi r- 


CO t— < CD LO CT> CO 

CO ^j- CO CT> <— < «— < 


co lo 

CNJ •— < 


CO r-- LO *3" 
LO CO CO CO 


cr> «— i 
r-- r-- 


CO LO 

O r- 


"5 




-3 

- 

Z 

a 


r-» o <y- CO «3" LO 

co •— < lo r-^ co r^ 

.— 1 .— 1 i— 1 CNJ CNJ 


LO CO 

r-* lo 

^ LO 


CNJ LO 
LO CO 

CNJ CNJ 


CO CO 
CO CO 
CO «3- 


CO CO LO CO 

.— 1 CO «— 1 


ro ,— i 
ON co 


CO CNJ CNJ CNJ 
CNJ LO O CNJ 
CO CO CNJ «— t 


LO "3" 

cnj r-. 

CD "3- 


CO CO CO CO 
LO LO CNJ CO 


r-. cti 



-HOONlDCO^ 



CNJ O O O CNJ CD 



LO <Ct r—i i— I LO LO 



OS 

c 


U 


. 


1/1 


z 

< 



■r 

u 

DJt 


M 

g 


-c 

3C 


M 


< 


-- 




£ 


T3 
E 


j 

ax 


e 

3C 


M 


a 


= 


-1 


Q 


3C 


c 




7". 


■ — 


ft. 





n rouiN ro Lfi 



CNJ O «— ' CD CO CD 



.-I O O ^f 



LO «-H LO O O «-H 



MCOCTiN CNJ LO 



CNJ CNJ LO h r-- CO 



«— i cnj r- r-. co en 



CO CO CNJ t-H 


O ON 


•^t" LO CD CNJ 


^J- r-. 


LO r-H CNJ f— t 


CO CO 


CNJ -^ CNJ 


CO CNJ 



Q = 



CJHIOHrOrH 



CT^ ^ UD "3- LO CO 

<3- m cnj t— i r^- ^- 






OOCDOOO OO 



O O O O CD O 



CD LO CD O O CD 

CO i-H CNJ CO HC0 
CO CO LO cnj r-» <3- 



CD CD CD O LO CD 



- 



O CO CO LO ' 



CO <* 
LO CNJ 



.- c 



CD CNJ <T\ O O O 

co lo lo lo cn r^. 



cr. cnj 
cnj r^ 

ro t— i 



^- CD «— 1 ON CNJ «-H 



CTi CD LO CO CO LO 

r-i *$• r~\ CNJ CNJ CD 

UD CTi rH st ^(- ON 

n-d- ^H CNJ 



CNJ CNJ LO CO CO LO 
«3- C- r— 1 CTi LO CO 



CO r— lo o ■—**=*- 



r. 



__J co _j m i co 



F— CJ> 



I ox 



i— I CM 



«d" r-» r-. c\j 



iOHMO<*COO^ro 



H 

as: 
© 

« 

o 

w S 



MM w 



z •- 

S to- 



ro LO O <£> 



o o o o 



o o 

«J0 LO 



OiOJ ro N at «— ' 



ca g 


— « 


•d" r-H f-- CXI rH(Tl 


u '3 


2 o 


cr> co cm >— ' cm «3- 


o a 


r~1 ^t LD ID ID 


CAS 

sed Du 


H .2 

a 




,— n o 






cfl s- 







iniocrnD 

CO CO CO CM 



CM kO CM LO «d" •— ' 

<d- •* cr> cr. co «3- 
r-- i—i i— * en cm 



ld <d a> i~-s 

O Ch rHCO 
CO r-4 CM 



<^t* ro 

CM CO 
O CM 



O O O O O O 



CM CT> CTi L£> «-H LO 

r-. o <3- ro cm <=* 

CM -^J- UD CM <T> U3 



O LT) «3" CO 



CO O CO LO f— l LO 

r-- CT. CO «— ' iDO 
<— I CM »-H CM CO LO 



CO •— * -X) •— < <3" CM 

r-.Lor--.r--. lo cm 

CM CM CM CM LO LO 



O O O LO 



LO O 
CO ,—1 

lo r-. 



«— » «^r o^ o o ^f 

LO f-- LO <0 CM CO 



«d- •— « r-- cr. --h O 

CM LO CM CO LO <3" 

ro «— i co cm 



o o o o o o 



ai ro oo lo 


co r^ 

CO co 
O CO 


co 10 cr> cr> 

ro *3- co r~~ 

o i-h i— i en 


O r~- 

•-" o 


CnJ f— t CO ^r 


CNJ CTi 




o*> *—* VO CO 
CXi CT> CNJ .— 1 


CM O 



CO CO ro cnj ■-< O 
<Ti CO r^ r-~ r~. co 



^^iocjcoooio^n •— tcr> 



ONCNjC3Ni£>CN]OCNjr~cocNi o r^ 
rocococx>ocNjo^j-r-~o t— i cnj 

t— I CNJ .— * .— I .— I <-H COLD 



cooNLncNj^tcr>LO^-fco^£> lo r^ 

roCOLOCTi^COLnOrocNJ CNJ CTt 
.-H CNJ.— ICNJ.— <^H.— I^J-CO CNJCO 



ooooooooolti o <r> 



NCOOCO^LDHCO .— 1 .— I 



r^oCNJCNir^.— fcNjr^^O 

cor^aiHcMncootnLn 



© v. 

< ' 

Q 

GO 



e 

pr, 



a - 






cnj cnj ro 



.— I CO C3N CTt CD CNJ 



I CNJ CNJ CNJ ^i- 



cm r— CM «3- 


^ t-H 


O CO CO o 


co ro 


LO i—l <JD CM 


<— 1 «3- 


CM LO CO r— I 


LO "O 



Pi 



^O r-l 



co <— i ro r- lo CO 

CO l£) LO UD CTi CM 



ai co co cr. o <— nDNinn coco 

i— iCOrOMD'Cj-CM'd-LOCO COCM 
CM CM 






Q 

w 
to 

ti, 

o 

w 

a 



o o o o o o 



O O O O O LO 



m 

'L_j 


-3 




O «X) ^J- r- 


^- o 


IjD •— • LO <=f 


CO CO 




(U 


< 


O O O *d" 


o ^i- 


O CM CO LO 


cr. co 


■tn 


V 




i — It — 1 i—4 i — 1 


1 — 1 1 — 1 


i — 1 i — 1 




O 














•jn 














<a 






o~> <X> •— t <^- 


LO O 


co lo «— i r- 


r^ -^r 


M 




U 










< 






CT) co co r-. 


cr. o 


co ^o o o 


<d" LO 


S 


-f 


LO UD «vf lO 


*3" LO 


UD O LO O 


UD ^£> 






»— 1 i— t i— 1 CM 


i—l CM 


HC\JHH 


^-1 I— t 



CO CM cm r-- o cr> 

ro vOCr> o ro ud 
cm ro ro ro 



ro r-. ro r-- lo «d" 
cn ro lo co «^t cm 

CO i—i CM -HCvl 



oooo o o 



CM «3" O KO Oro 



CO LO LO ^J" CO CT. 
■— * CM CO CM LO «^f 

«— i cm i—i ^h cm ro 



O CD O O OO 



r- -d- o «d- cm <^o 



CM LO i— l LO CO CD 
LO CT. ^H LO LO LO 

NH CM CM 



OOOlOCDOOOOO OO 



(CT'Lor--ocOLjor--ro 



a^LOCOCM'd-'jDO^LOi— !•— i •— icr. 

t-HCM^j-vOLOCOCT.r-.CMCO <^CM 
i—t^ i—t <—\ LO >^- 



■r- O 



.— S- 



109 



r— < «— i r^ cm cm >— * «— • co >-f n 



OOWfOHQCO^ 



1 en o o ^r 



c\jLncjcoir)Ln(\]n .— < <— < 



■ «^j- cm «3- co co 



c/3 
H 

- 
C 

u 



cocr><3-iDc r >ocT,<^r *a- cti 

•— ' ^LOHHioLn «3- cm 



w r^ 






CMCM<^f-Ln^rcMmo>r^.r». 



X > 



z •- 



CO «=J- 
CT> «d" 



S O CM 

o o^ o 

q. r^. cr* 

5 ^^ 



r^-ror^<Njm^j-<— <kO CO in 

CMI^C^O^LniDkD in C7> 
cm co «— • CM «* VO 



OlOOOOOOO Old 



irno ro n lo co o id «=d- r-» 



CO ^)- ^j- r- < CTi CO >-H m r-~ co 

NroHinocOHio on 



CMrHoaiNfAjLnrN 

CO r— I CM CM ^ CO -«d- 



OOOLDOOOO 



O O 

CO ^j- 



Ot- ■C0cr,C0'3-cocG ro oj 

r^OCMr-^cocrtcn<-H in ^ 

COOirOMHOHO l£) N 

HHHrAJMHH r-H«— I 



NOOlCOLnrOHH CMCM 

Ln^LrnDHi^rifAj *d-co 

CM CO i— I i—l *3" LTl 



LO-— irOaiLDLr)^D<tC0LO 



OOOOOLOOOLOLn oo 



ocr>ix>cr>cji<d-«3-ror--<st r^r^. 

i— IO<— < CO <tf- «^f CM •— IfAjLO IDN 

ommr^^cMCMimom ro in 

i-H •— IIT) rHHr- 1 i-l i-HCM <- ' CM «— I 



in-^- "^NiDooLnuDioo m in 

MH NNLf) HCvJCVjrOCO i— If— I 



OOroooocoo mo 



ai^OrAJi/)HLnro^rAi 



O _ 

z ° 



u 


a 


Q 


3C 


X 


— i 


NN 


r«* 


2 


•o 


Q 


C 


Z 


c 


< 


41 

a. 


- 


u 

s 


b 


u 




w 




S 


,- 


y 


^ 


at 


C 


^ 


— 




w 




- 





r-< CD 
LTl CO 

.-H CNJ 



4f < 



Js " 



CD LTi 



CT. ro 

m r-*. 
cm ro 



OOOOOOOlTj OO 



ro CT. CO m r^. i— i ud 



ro<mr^oi<3-cocTiCM co in 

r-l ro CM 



l «3" LO CTl CM CM O 



OOOOOOOO OO 

rooooaiinkDiNCO CMLO 

^rOCOHOLONOvJ «— I LO 

CM CM t— I t— I <— I 



ID CO CTl H ID in in co co «^f 

LO «— I 

o «* 



<3-«3-ocMOOr-^coinin m «3- 



OcocMLOT-HoroorocM CT. o 



oiONWOOroororo CM im 



iocricooooo>r-v«^j- 



OOOLOOOOOOIT) OO 



OOror--i— ioOt— iojn coro 

HCOHN H Oi trt in Lf) CO f-^ KD 

CMCTtU-)CO«3-r-HCOCMOO COO 

CO** r-H CM f^- CM CM CM CM CMCO 



i r-l CTi O CO LO CO CO 

h ro rj- csj m id m 



CT) CT. 

co in 

CM CM 






t i — • I_t_l I — i UJ t— i 



LO ICO ICO ICO ICO 

i— i [_U t— i UJ >— iUJh i UJ i— i 

e:li_e:li_e:li_s: u_ s: 



</i -i— 



1 10 



I O O «3- ■-< 



h c\j .o co CNJ 



c J, 



N«t rHMCO<J 


lo o 


Ol LO 


inHrHHMn 


«3" CO 


CO r-- 



CO CO CO LO LO Cn 



CO 




H 




05 




P 




O 




u 




« 




© 




t=I 




££S 




W 


00 


0- 


1—1 


p 


<3\ 


on 


H 




la 


w 


SS 


X 


>> 


H 


m 




u 


Z 




GO 


©JD 

e 


W 


-_, 


CO 

< 


9 

X) 
...J 
in 


^•s 





co 


fit, 



LO 0> CM CJ\ .— < O CTtCO 

CO cm co .3- co lo ■— i 

■—I CNJ t-H 



CO *3- o lo co co hn 

r^ ct> lo «3- co o c\j<3- 

«3- cm lo co 



CO CO O LO CO CO t-Hf-H 

lo *3" O CO «3- ro o •— t 

.— i ,— i .— i .— i co en 



o o o o o o 



o o 

t-H CM 
O CO 



locOMNioo -a-^i- 



7 




m 


in 


r.i 


ro 


>* 


LO 


ci-i 


CO 


rO 


CD 


LO 


a; 


ro 


«* 


co 


r I 






1-1 


1-1 


1-1 




1-1 


■"* 


1-1 


1-1 




V 


















"5 


,r 


n 


CM 


cn 


. — i 


iTi 


■» 


00 




O 


n i 


<"i: 


ro 




cn 








e 


a. 


CM 




CM 


CM 


«> 


LO 


«s 


en 


H 


a 














. — i 





i— I LO CO LO CTi »— < 



CO o-> 

CO .-h 



LO CM 
•3" CO 
lo CO 



o o o o o o 



■=3- •* 
CO CO 

lo r-~ 



r-- co 

CM <=f 
O LO 



LO O 

LO «^f 


lo 

LD 


Cn 
ro 


LD O 
LO <3" 


r-* cn 


LO 


CM 


LO LO 


co ^r 

LO LO 


LD 


LO 


LD LO 


LO CO 

cn p-. 

ro «— i 


p- O 

CO CO 


ro ro 

CO LO 
LO CM 



O lo 
<3- cnj 



i ^ r^- cm lo p~- lo 
O CO *Lt 



^^-CTttJDrOOCDLO*cJ-CTiCM 



ONhsLOtMrfNiHrvro roo 
MfOLOH r-. ix> c\j i— < CO ro 

«— • CO •— * 



CDCDOOOOOOOLO LOO 



NyOOLnO^DCftNstO 


CO CM 


LO<"*">OLDf^»<"0«3-C\JOO 

OOfMN^-^CMOJCOrH 


LO O 
CM C\J 



CM CO 
O CO 



(\J CTiOCOiDCO -lOLO-ct *& i 
LOr^CDLOCMCMLOCOLOCM -—It 
ro CM -—l CO CM •— • ' 



fOONWHrs IX) Cft 



cn lo o O cn lo 



i*d-r^i— i lo co lo lo co *x> 



m 






/\ 


o 


<•« 


~ 


Wi 


z 
< 




6C 


*-> 
a! 

D 


SO 


w 


< 


cV 




§ 


tJ 
B 


u 

Si 


o 


w 


M 


c 


J, 





ira 


■a 
c 





CO 



so 

©4 



5J 
M 
< 



2 I 



5 = 

z 
o 

u. 

u. 

o 

w 

o 



r^LDCMCNjCOfO co •— * 



ovtinotMN 



CM r-H CM O 



LO O CD O LO CD 



O ro p- «— i lo <3- 


CM CO 


«d- LO 


^t" CM 


•— » (XI «3- <— • LO 


t— i ro 


*JD cm 


r-\ ro 



CM »—* LO CM (Tt CM 


SD LO 


cn LO 


.—i CO 


UD CM LO CM CO CO 


CD CM 


CM O 


CO r- 




CM -H 


«3- i— I 


■ — i 



r~- co cm co 



o o o o o o 


o o 


O LO 

co r^ 
r-~ lo 


o o 

LO O 

lo r-~- 


o o o o 

CO LO CM CM 
r^ LO CM 


Q O 

co co 
r-~ lo 


o o 


CONCTliHrHO 
LO N ID"* N ^t 


CO .-I 

LO <3" 


r-- cm 

r-- r — 



■ «tf- CM <^- CM f— I LD 



CO<^ rH^D ro CM 



<T) r^ CTi «sj- CM CO 

co CO r- co ro cn 


LD CM 

o cn 


cn *-h 
ro cm 

•— ( CM 


CO LO 
O CO 


Cfi n r^ co 

O O «3- CM 


ro ro 

O cn 


CO r^ 


CO^HNOCO 
O LO «— ' CO c© o 


cn -3- 
cn cn 

ro i— i 


LO LD 

o o 

O CM 


r^ o 

^f LD 

CO r-H 


O H LO cn 

ro ^ t—i 


LO O 
<3" LO 


cn cm 

LO r-i 



■^j- cm cn cm O lo ro 



O N CM ^ CO r- (CnCMLDCM LOLD 

ro t— t cm cm r~~- ^t- 



cocno< H rco«^-LOCnLOCM ldco 



OOCDOOOOCDOO OLO 

CM00CnCMLOOCn<H-LD«— l «d" o 

rocn«3-rovD<^t-<— icnLOr— i cm ■— * 

r-1 rH H CNJ rHrH «^ CM <—\<—l 



LOit^rt-COrOO'-'NCO CMP-. 

CM^COCMP~-LDCOrO'^-ro LD«^- 

ldcoldlocolocoldcmcm o<3- 

rHr-ii-|rHC\ICM'- , Hij-Ln CMCM 



coloocmld^ cmld 
i «h- i— » ro p-- cn ro cnr— 

CM IT)H 






1 1 



uD cr> 
r- co 
en r-» 






'^Q-iDOO'JlDCOcn'-im^HCvj «-h 



- 
2i 



!*> "? C") 0"> .— I CM 



CO LO 
v£> CTl 
«^T CO 



c 

u 

OS 



eu - 

— , oo 

I— ' on 

ti 2 
S > 

u 
Z e 

w ■= 

■e 
-, c 

^ S 1 



u 



odinoodMi 



OOOOlOOOOOOlOOLOO C3C3 

i-HOMnNaicO'-'Oc^ixjr^cocsjcsj o-> o 

H^H^)HOa>HHCOOOlDl/1 CTti-H 

i— < f— I CM HOJ y—tr-* .— i .—) i— I 



c COlDC\JCTiOHinC^N«*CTi(7)C\JCri f-». LO 

* &* O^csjininrN^HCTiiTimLrnDn 
^< r^coLOCT^^LO^cocoocMr^co<T\ 



« - 
C Q. 



mCOrOrHCONLn^tCM 

ro cm c\j 



<3- co 
O Ol 
en lo 



l£> CO 


1- Csl 
O CT> 


r~- co 


LO CO 




CD ud 

•3" C>J 



I *j- rn m i— i i 



r 


w 


C 


w 


< 


s 
QJ 

< 


S 

u- 


■a 

03 


Q 


— 



C -1 



CO ro 
LO LO 

m lo 



O LO 
■=± LO 
LD CO 



Q 
z 

< 






lo rn 



OLOOLOOOOOOOOCDLOCD OO 

^ cnirnom^concovjDHMCvjNn o^r 

^, TTOl^'JrHOCfiCMOvJO^^kOrO cor^ 

^T'-'HCNjHroroHHin'd-'flT-irH cm i— i 



Z 

c 



^. cor^cocr-CNjr^tncricO'— < <— iN-jr- 1 r^ co 



— 

o 



«■ ^-d-cncOu^^r^Ln'^rjiDcocNjCO on 
= ro c*> t— i cm-— i -3- n ld <j ^j- cm in «^± i— i 



i to _i co — n/i _j (/) i on ico i co i co 

l *— < UJ ►— • LU •— . UJ ■— • LU »— < LU i— • LU >— ' LU >— > 
2U-ZU-ZU-2U-ZLJ.ZIJ-Z U.EI 



r^ o 

r-. co 

i i > < i 

_j co 



'. 



•i> ro 



12 



PART IV, Section 2 



District Court Division 
Caseflow Data 



The District Court Division 



This section contains data tables and accompanying 
charts depicting the caseflow in 198 1-82 of cases filed and 
disposed of in the State's district courts, including those 
handled by magistrates. 

When the plaintiff in a civil case requests, and the 
amount in controversy does not exceed $1,000, the case 
may be classified as a "small claim" civil action and 
assigned to a magistrate for hearing. Magistrates also 
have certain criminal case jurisdiction. They may accept 
written appearance and waiver of trial, with plea of guilty, 
and enter judgment in accord with the schedule of fines 
promulgated by chief district judges for traffic offenses. 
Also, magistrates may accept guilty pleas in other misde- 
meanor cases where the sentence cannot be in excess of 30 
days or $50 fine; and may hear and enter judgment in 
worthless check cases where the amount involved is $500 
or less, and any prison sentence imposed does not exceed 
30 days. 

Appeals from magistrates' judgments in both civil and 
criminal casesare to the district court, with a district court 
judge presiding. 

This section contains data on three major case classifi- 
cations in the district court division: civil cases, juvenile 
proceedings, and criminal cases. Civil cases include cases 
assigned to magistrates (small claims as defined above), 
domestic relations cases (chiefly concerned with annul- 
ments, divorces, alimony, custody and support of chil- 
dren), and "general civil" cases. Juvenile proceedings are 
classified in accordance with the nature of the offense or 
condition alleged in the petition which initiates the case. 
District court criminal cases are divided into motor vehi- 
cle cases (where the offense charged is defined in Chapter 
20 of the North Carolina General Statutes) and non- 
motor criminal cases. 

Consistent with previous years, the pie charts on the 
following page illustrate that district court criminal cases 
filed and disposed of in the 1981-82 year greatly out- 
numbered civil cases. Motor vehicle criminal cases consti- 
tuted approximately forty-eight per cent of total filings 
and dispositions, and the non-motor vehicle criminal 
cases accounted for just under thirty per cent. As in past 
years, the greatest portion of district court civil filings and 
dispositions were small claims referred to magistrates. 

The large volume categories of criminal motor-vehicle 
and civil magistrate cases are not reported by case file 
numbers. Therfore, it is not possible to obtain, by compu- 
ter processing, the numbers of pending cases as of a given 
date or the ages of cases pending and ages of cases at 
disposition. These categories of cases are processed 
through the courts faster than any others, thus explaining 
the decision not to allocate personnel and computer 
resource to reporting these cases in the detail that is 
provided for other categories of cases. 

Also, juvenile proceedings and hearings on commit- 
ment or recommitment of persons to the State's mental 
hospital facilities are not reported by case file numbers. 



Two tables are provided on juvenile proceedings: 
offenses and conditions alleged, and numbers of adjudi- 
catory hearings held. 

Data on district court hearings for mental hospital 
commitments and recommitments is reported in Part 111, 
"Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents." 

Ages ol district court cases pending on June 30, 1982, 
and ages of cases disposed of during 1981-82 are reported 
for the general civil and domestic relations and tor the 
criminal non-motor vehicle case categories. 

The table for general civil and domestic relations cases 
shows that the median age of such cases which were 
pending on June 30, 1982, was 181 days, compared with a 
median age of 189 days for cases pending on June 30, 
1981. The median age of cases in this category at the time 
of disposition during 1981-82 was 67 days, compared with 
a median age of 66 days at the time of disposition during 
1980-81. 

For district court non-motor vehicle criminal cases, the 
median age for cases pending on June 30, 1982, was hi 
days compared with a median age of 54 days for eases 
pending on June 30, 198 1 . The median age of eases in this 
category at the time of disposition during 1981-82 was 22 
days compared with a median age of 2 1 days at the time of 
disposition during 1980-81. 

The Statewide total district court tilings during 1981- 
82, not including juvenile cases and mental hospital 
commitment hearings, was 1,421,309 cases, compared 
with 1,520,826 during 1980-81, a decrease of 99,517 
(6.5%). Most of this reduction came in the motor vehicle 
criminal ease category where filings in 1980-81 amounted 
to 773,443 cases compared to 677,247 cases filed in 1981- 
82, a decrease of 96,196 (12.4%) cases. 1 his reduction 
appears to minora similar drop in reported State High- 
way Patrol charges of motor vehicle violations. (How- 
ever, it should be noted that Highway Patrol charging 
activity represents only part of the total picture in motor 
vehicle criminal cases. Citations are also written by city 
and county law enforcement agencies, and data on 
charges of motor vehicle violations by these is not 
available.) 

There also was a decrease (5.4% ) in district court civil 
case filings, from a total of 344,483 in 1980-81 to 325,886 
in 1981-82. Most of this decrease was in civil magistrate 
filings, from 226,604 cases in 1980-81 to 215,625 cases in 
1981-82. In the domestic relations category, there was a 
decrease of 6,740 cases in 1981-82 compared to the 
number in 1980-81, attributable to a change in reporting: 
subsequent motions and petitions in a domestic relations 
case, following initial disposition, are no longer reported. 

The only increase in district court case iilings came in 
the criminal non-motor vehicle case category. A total of 
418,176 cases in this category were filed during 1981-82, 
which was a 3.8%, increase over the 402,900 cases filed in 
1980-81. 



115 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

1981-1982 



FILINGS 



MOIOR VEHICI I 



GENERA! CI VI 



DOMESTIC RELATIONS 




CIVIL MAGISTRATE 



CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE 



DISPOSITIONS 



moior vehicle 



(il-M-RAI CIVIL 



DOMESTIC KEI A I IONS 




"RIMINAL NON-MO I OR VEHICLE 



MAGISIRATE 



ontinue to dominate the district court 

load. However, the motor vehicle portion of the case- 

maller than it has been in recent years; this is a 



reflection of the significant drop in motor vehicle cases 
filed and disposed during I9XI-X2. 



116 



FILING AND DISPOSITION TRENDS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

1972-1982 



2.0 



M 
I 
I 
I 

I 

() 
N 
S 



O 
F 



C 
A 

S 
E 

S 



1.5 



1.0 



0.5 



0.0 




81-82 



Depicted in this graph are all civil and criminal case filings 
and dispositions for the last decade, including traffic 
offenses and civil magistrate cases. The decrease in filings 
and dispositions for 1981-82 is largely attributable to a 



12.4% decrease in filings and a 12% decrease in disposi- 
tions in motor vehicle cases, as compared to the 1980-8 1 
fiscal year. 



17 



HUNG AND DISPOSITION TRENDS OF CIVIL DISTRICT COURT CASES 

1972-1982 



40(1 



H 
O 

I 
S 

\ 

\ 
D 

s 



<) 
I 



300 



Kin 




Filings / / 

/ 

_/*"" / Dispositions 

fi if 



72 



7\ 



74 



75 



76 



7 7 



7X 



7K-79 79-80 XO-XI S 1-XI 



After a stead) upward trend during the past decade, 

district court civil case tilings decreased by 5.4%, and 

dispositions by 3.59? during the 19X1-X2 fiscal year; all 

ol civil cases contributed to the decrease. Dur- 

-:2. generral civil tilings decreased by 1.3%, and 



civil magistrate tilings dropped by 4.9%, as compared to 
1980-81; the exclusion of post-disposition activities in the 
domestic relations area largely contributed to the 10.3% 
decrease there. 



GENERAL CIVIL AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

1981-1982 



NO 



I 
11 

O 
1 

s 

A 

N 
!) 

S 



O 
1 



C 

A 

S 
1 

s 



60 



40 



20 



FILINGS 
DISPOSITIONS 
END PENDING 



59,039 



53,535 



51 222 




57,151 



26,066 



GENERAL CIVIL 



DOMESTIC RELATIONS 



General civil dispositions outnumbered case filings dur- 
ing the 1981-82 year, resulting in a reduction in the 
number of cases pending at the end of the year as com- 
pared to the number of cases pending at the beginning of 



the year. Unlike previous years, domestic relations case 
filings and dispositions only included new cases; no post- 
disposition activities were counted as part of the caseload 
during 1981-82. 



119 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1981 —June 30, 1982 

Filings 



District 1 


Pending 

7/1/81 


Total 


General 
Civil 


Domestic 
Relations 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/82 


Chowan 
Currituck 

Gates 

Pasquotank 
i :mans 


23 

7S 

77 
164 

56 
231 

32 


52 
196 
209 
3 34 

65 
456 
110 


21 

79 

106 

L88 

l'i 

167 

38 


il 

117 
101 
146 

46 
889 

72 


75 

2 74 
88,1, 
498 
121 

68 7 
148 


61 
199 
146 
!60 

88 
465 

96 


68.0 
72.6 
51.0 
72.2 
72.7 
67.6 
67.6 


84 

75 

140 

1 38 

33 

222 

46 


ict Totals 


661 


1,422 


l,.18 


8,114 


2,083 


1,405 


67.4 


6 78 


District 2 


















Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrel 1 
Washington 


278 

26 

189 
24 
89 


5 39 
62 

36 3 
40 
193 


186 

14 

1(1/ 

7 

65 


353 
4 8 

256 
33 

128 


817 
88 

662 
64 

888 


537 

61 

34 7 

4 3 

207 


65.7 
69.3 
62.8 
67.1 
73.4 


280 
27 

206 
21 
76 


District Totals 


606 


1,197 


379 


818 


1,803 


1,195 


66.2 


608 


District 3 


















Carteret 
Craven 

Paml ico 
Pitt 


4 78 

945 

73 

953 


875 
1,625 

143 
1,637 


262 
6 38 

46 
779 


613 

987 

97 

8,58, 


1,353 

2,570 

216 

2,590 


8)8 
1,745 

141 
1,631 


61.4 
67.8 
65.2 
62.9 


521 

826 

75 

959 


District Totals 


2,449 


4,280 


1 ,786 


8,665 


6,729 


4,349 


64.6 


2,380 


District 4 

Jones 

Onslow 

Sampson 


371 

72 

1,007 

351 


588 

110 
1,736 

714 


;?;6 
33 

(88 

222 


(68 

77 

1,354 

492 


959 

182 

2,743 

1,065 


547 

109 

1,638 

752 


57.0 
59.8 
59.7 
70.6 


412 

73 

1,105 

313 


District Totals 


1 ,801 


3,148 


873 


2,275 


4,949 


3,046 


61.5 


1,903 


New Hanover 
Pender 


1,288 

130 


3,069 
309 


1,607 
120 


1,462 
189 


4,357 
439 


2,853 
265 


65.4 
60.3 


1,504 
174 


District Totals 


1,418 


3,378 


1,727 


1,651 


4,796 


3,118 


65.0 


1,678 


District 6 


















Bertie 
Halifax 
Hertford 
IJorthampton 


9 7 
211 
304 


2 35 

774 
810 
268 


60 
1 38 


] 75 

589 
275 

I 10 


( (2 

985 

1,114 

341 


218 
808 
764 
267 


65.6 
82.0 
68.5 
78.2 


114 
177 

350 
74 


District Totals 


685 


2,087 


978 


1,109 


2,772 


2,057 


74.2 


716 


District 7 


















Edgecombe 

flash 

Wilson 


68,7 

704 
533 


1,119 
1,027 
1,266 


4 8 '. 
400 
44 / 


696 
627 
819 


1,806 
1,731 
1,799 


1,236 
1,161 
1,239 


68.4 
67.0 
68.8 


5 70 
5 70 
560 


totals 


1,924 


3,412 


1,270 


2,142 


5,336 


3,636 


68.1 


1,700 


District 3 




















55 

786 

1,814 


156 
1,446 
2,460 


L19 

582 

1,162 


37 

864 

1,298 


211 
2,232 
4,274 


176 
1,642 
2,698 


83.4 
73.5 
63.1 


35 

590 

1,576 


r ict Totals 


2,655 


4,062 


1,863 


2,199 


6,717 


4,516 


67.2 


2,201 



120 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1981 —June 30, 1982 

Filings 



District 9 

Frankl in 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 

District Totals 



Pending 




General 


Domestic 


Total 


7/1/81 


Total 


Civil 


Re 


ations 


Caseload 


16b 


359 


;?44 




115 


524 


137 


331 


120 




211 


46,", 


2 76 


4 40 


i 98 




242 


/1 6 


309 


663 


14', 




518 


9/2 


,"14 


301 


56 




245 


515 



1,101 



2,094 



76 3 



1,331 



3,195 





% Caseload 


Pending 


>sed 


Disposed 


6/30/82 


',42 


65.2 


182 


324 


69.2 


144 


4(10 


55.8 


316 


6 12 


65.0 


34 


397 


77.0 


1 18 



2,095 



65.5 



1,100 



District 10 
Wake 



4,239 



7,654 



4,750 



11,873 



7,682 



64.7 



4., 101 



District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 

District 12 

Cumberland 

Hoke 

District Totals 

District 13 

Bladen 
Brunswick 
Col umbus 

District Totals 



District 14 
Durham 

District 15A 
Alamance 

District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 
District 16 



75 3 


981 


471 


510 


1,734 


1,229 


70.8 


505 


907 


1,425 


781 


64 4 


2,332 


1,505 


64.5 


82 7 


669 


946 


055 


281 


1,615 


917 


56.7 


698 



2,329 



2,668 



147 
268 

444 

859 



2,285 



504 



184 
962 

1,146 



3,352 



5,419 



612 

663 

1,043 

2,318 



3,234 



1,617 



372 
939 

1,311 



1,917 



1,435 



1,565 



372 
295 
420 

1,087 



2,085 



592 



128 
o 1 3 

741 



3. ,854 



240 

368 
62 3 

1,231 



1,149 



1,025 



244 
386 

5 70 



5,681 



3,651 



i,087 



769 

931 

1,487 

3,177 



5,519 



2,121 



556 
1,901 

2,457 



5,132 



2,332 
3,719 
1,648 



424 
1,192 

1,616 



64.2 



63.4 



603 


79.4 


647 


69.4 


1,082 


72.7 



73.4 



67.3 



77.6 



76.2 
62.7 

65.7 



2,030 



2,545 


5,047 


1,394 


3,653 


7,592 


4,755 


62.6 


2,837 


123 


372 


171 


201 


495 


377 


76.1 


118 



2,955 



156 
284 
405 

845 



1,800 



4 7 '. 



132 
709 



Robeson 
Scotland 


739 

220 


1,979 
732 


9 31 

4 31 


1,048 
301 


2,718 
952 


1,901 
630 


69.9 
66.1 


81/ 
322 


District Totals 


959 


2,711 


1,362 


1,349 


3,670 


2,531 


68.9 


1,139 


District 17A 


















Caswell 
Rockingham 


95 
505 


186 
1,318 


',0 
5 12 


136 
806 


281 
1,823 


176 
1,454 


62.6 
79.7 


105 

369 


District Totals 


600 


1,504 


562 


942 


2,104 


1,630 


77.4 


4 74 


District 17B 


















Stokes 
Surry 


109 
458 


337 
1,079 


156 

571 


181 
508 


446 
1,537 


314 
1,138 


70.4 
74.0 


132 
399 


District Totals 


56 7 


1,416 


72 7 


(-.89 


1,983 


1,452 


73.2 


531 


District 18 



















Guilford 



3,434 



7,091 



3,706 



3,385 



10,525 



7,730 



73.4 



2,795 



121 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1981 —June 30, 1982 

Filings 



Di strict 19B 

Totals 
Di strict 20 

Moore 
Richmond 

ict Totals 



Pending 

7/1/81 


Total 


General 
Civil 


Domestic 
Relations 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/82 


843 
565 


1,579 
1,352 


690 
573 


889 
779 


2,422 
1,917 


1,655 
1,223 


68.3 
63.7 


767 
694 


1,408 


2,931 


1,263 


1,668 


4,339 


2,878 


66.3 


1,461 


158 
326 


273 
988 


228 
291 


45 
697 


431 
1,314 


225 
1,005 


52.2 
76.4 


509 



484 



14 i 
380 
74 7 
366 
559 

2,195 



1,261 



345 
785 
679 
76 / 
937 

5,513 



'.19 



149 
130 
214 
530 
492 

1,715 



742 



1 96 
455 
465 
237 

445 

1,798 



1,745 



1,165 
1,426 
1,133 
1,496 

5,708 



1,230 



70.4 



309 


63.3 


733 


62.9 


683 


47.8 


65? 


57.5 


9 3 3 


62.3 



3,310 



57.9 



515 



1/9 

4 12 
742 
481 

563 

2,398 



)istrict 22 



ict Totals 
District 23 

Ashe 

Yadkin 

. ict Totals 

ict 24 



ct 26 



2,122 



94 

46 j 
114 
501 

1,172 



1 1 2 



6,369 



261 

1,348 

265 

1,277 

3,151 



2,047 



i,909 



75 

49/' 
100 
64 3 

1,315 



2,400 



186 
851 
165 
6 34 

1,836 



1,124 



9? 3 



60 1 

636 

1,047 

2 ,286 



1,196 
1,146 
2,116 

4,458 



517 

528 

1,013 

2,058 



I./9 

618 
1,103 

2,400 



8,491 



355 
1,811 

379 
1,778 

4,323 



6,305 



286 
1,382 

274 
1,278 

3,220 



2,759 



2,135 



7,279 11,236 5,805 5,431 

1,108 2,696 762 1,934 



6,744 



4,701 



74.2 



80.5 
76.3 
72.2 
71.8 

74.4 



77.3 



1,799 


1,272 


70.7 


1,782 


1,070 


60.0 


3,163 


2,359 


74.5 



69.7 



18,515 10,253 55.3 



2,186 



69 
429 

105 
500 

1,103 



4:; 


12 i 


66 


57 


1/1 


1 10 


76.0 


41 


86 


;v < 


/(. 


14/ 


309 


205 


66.3 


104 


451 


1,310 


826 


484 


1,761 


1,408 


79.9 


35 3 


127 


391 


156 


2 35 


518 


392 


75.6 


126 



624 







98 


225 


1 06 


119 


32 3 


192 


59.4 


131 


Madison 




67 


! 38 


4," 


96 


205 


117 


57.0 


88 


Mitchell 




63 


1 5 3 


62 


91 


216 


1 38 


63.8 


78 






132 


4/4 


237 


2 17 


606 


!9 3 


64.8 


213 






84 


173 


78 


95 


;"»/ 


1)30 


70.0 


77 




Totals 


444 


1,163 


525 


638 


1,607 


1,020 


63.4 


587 




25 



















3,804 



2,643 



69.4 



527 

712 
804 

2,043 



8,262 



1,161 



122 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1981 —June 30, 1982 

Filings 



District 


!7B 




Cleveland 
Lincoln 

District 


Tota 


s 



Pending 




General 


Domestic 


Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


7/1/81 


Total 


Civil 


Relations 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/82 


!4 : 


1,146 


359 


787 


1,489 


1,060 


71.1 


429 


,'14 


530 


188 


342 


774 


590 


76.2 


] 84 



58/ 



1,676 



54/ 



1,129 



2,263 



1,650 



72.9 



613 



District 28 
Buncombe 

District 29 

Henderson 
Mc Dowel 1 
Polk 

Rutherford 
Transylvania 

District Totals 

District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 

District Totals 
State Totals 



1,097 



4 80 
187 

55 

2 ii) 
259 

1,211 



102 

1'. 
S7 

2Mi 

225 

r.6 
105 

900 

55,895 



2,923 



918 
489 
12 i 

5 86 
340 

2,456 



235 

72 
86 

(, I 6 
269 
238 
178 

1,694 
110,261 



1,012 



270 

15 3 

45 

207 

105 

780 



10 
17 
13 
222 
91 
96 
69 

5 38 
51,222 



1,911 



648 

3 3(3 
78 

3 74 

2 35 

1,676 



225 

35 
73 

394 
178 
142 

109 

1,156 
59,039 



4,020 



1,398 
676 
1 78 
816 

590 

3,667 



337 
87 

12 3 
876 
494 
394 
283 

2,594 
166,156 



2,807 



69.8 



824 


58.9 


475 


70.2 


139 


78.0 


593 


72.6 


592 


65.4 



2,423 



66:0 



152 


45.1 


59 


67.8 


96 


78.0 


575 


65.6 


293 


59.3 


257 


65.2 


139 


49.1 



1,571 
110,686 



60.5 



66.6 



1,213 



5 74 
201 

39 

22 3 

207 

1,244 



1 85 
28 
27 

301 

201 
137 
1 A 4 

1,023 
55,470 



123 



METHODS OF DISPOSITION OF DISTRICT COURT GENERAL CIVIL 
AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 

1981-1982 



o'im-'R 



VOI I \ I ARY DISMISSAL 




IUDGE 



CLERK 



JURY 

0.59? 



I he majority oi civil district court cases, excluding civil 
magistrate cases, are disposed by judges. Only 498 jury 



trials were held in district court for civil cases during the 
1981-82 year. 



24 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1981 —June 30, 1982 



District 1 



Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 

District Totals 



Total 
Dispositions 



Camden 


r -.l 


Chowan 


L99 


Currituck 


14h 


Dare 


360 


Gates 


08 


Pasquotank 


460 


Perquimans 


96 


District Total s 


1,405 


District 2 




Beaufort 


5 37 


Hyde 


61 


Martin 


34 7 


Tyrrell 


4 i 


Washington 


207 


District Totals 


1,195 


District 3 




Carteret 


832 


Craven 


1,745 


Paml ico 


141 


Pitt 


1,631 


District Totals 


4,349 


District 4 




Dupl in 


54/ 


Jones 


109 


Onslow 


1,638 


Sampson 


752 


District Totals 


3,046 


District 5 




New Hanover 


2,853 


Pender 


265 


District Totals 


3,118 


District 6 




Bertie 


218 


Halifax 


808 


Hertford 


764 


Northampton 


06 7 


District Totals 


2,057 


District 7 




Edgecombe 


1,236 


Nash 


1,161 


Wilson 


1,239 


District Totals 


3,636 


District 8 





176 
1,642 
2,698 

4,516 



86 



388 



0/1 



General Civil 



Voluntary 
Judge Jury Clerk Dismissal Other 









7 


4 





13 





41 


04 


4 


10 


2 


10 


28 


3 


43 





61 


05 


6 


11 





9 


12 





40 


1 


89 


48 


19 


3 





13 


10 


1 


oo 


3 


30 


001 


'! 1 


35 


7 


6 3 


55 


10 


9 


1 


1 








01 


1 


41 


4 


15 


0' 





3 


1 


1 


0.) 


1 


24 


0/ 


5 



10 



1 30 



060 



383 



06 7 



300 



33 



85 





96 


144 


16 


197 


8 


087 


304 


00 


16 


1 


13 


13 


0. 


3 7 


1 


257 


320 


00 


5 35 


12 


653 


781 


64 


111 





101 


6 3 


5 


00 





9 


4 


1 


15 3 


3 


78 


103 


7 


104 


5 


70 


77 


1 



14 



5 31 


5 


606 


308 


3 


08 


3 


04 


30 


8 


559 


8 


650 


358 


11 


14 





17 


13 


1 


99 


1 


133 


50 


2 


60 





207 


005 


7 


98 





06 


10 


; 



1/ 



217 


1 


166 


1 1 8 


1 


169 


4 


173 


158 


8 


190 





140 


111 





5 78 


5 


481 


387 


11 


100 





9 


1 


16 


205 


3 


70 


165 


6 


00 3 


10 


4 59 


648 


1 



638 



763 



1,922 



1,£ 



<)0h 



600 



15 



740 



814 



03 



2,012 



41 

935 

1,051 

2,027 



Domestic Relations 









Voluntary 




Judge 


Jury 


Clerk 


Dismissal 


Other 


23 








5 


4 


93 





4 


11 


6 


64 








11 


9 


116 


(J 


1 


06 


10 


49 








6 


1 


033 


1 





04 


10 


60 








9 






04 



11 



18 



1 

5 

19 

25 



95 



W 



194 



191 



61 



0/ 





48 

004 

052 



40 



309 





4 


06 


6 


40 








3 


3 


255 








1 


9 


08 


f) 


1 


3 


4 


109 








5 


15 



37 



404 





7 


63 


15 


7 75 





9 


57 


88 


54 


1 





16 


19 


680 





8 


58 


41 



16 3 



041 


1 


9 


5 


11 


70 








3 


2 


1,128 


1 





100 


45 


399 





2 


83 


9 



6 7 



,276 
146 


5 




10 



68 
15 


1 
11 


,422 


5 


10 


8 3 


12 


159 
405 
023 
119 


1 





1 


4 
1 


10 

01 

06 

4 



3 

10 




13 



660 








45 


26 


59 7 





4 


30 


18 


755 





10 


22 


3 



4 7 



6 

5 

11 



125 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1981 —June 30, 1982 





Total 
Dispositions 






Geneial Ci 


V ll 






Domestic Relations 






Judge 


Jury 


Clerk 


Voluntary 
Dismissal 


Other 


Judge 


Jury 


Clerk 


Voluntary 
Dismissal 


Other 


District 9 
























Frankl in 
Granvi 1 le 
Person 
Vance 
Warren 


342 
324 
400 
6 52 
397 


137 
53 
71 
50 
58 


1) 


2 
2 
2 


1/ 
30 
67 
30 
20 


49 
40 
48 
44 
31 


9 

•1 

i) 

20 

1 


113 

169 

197 
223 
249 


(1 




1 


2 
22 

2 

i 

4 


11 
12 
13 
54 

17 


4 

4 



224 

ll 


District Totals 


2,095 


569 


6 


L64 


2] i 


37 


941 


1 


34 


87 


243 


District 10 
























Wake 


7,682 


1,493 


14 


1,930 


1,385 


70 


2,517 


2 


15 


16! 


9 3 


District 11 
























Harnett 
Johnston 

Lee 


1,229 
1,505 

917 


2 5 3 
313 
215 


10 

3 
5 


1M 
[28 
234 


244 
182 


4 
1 35 
66 


496 
579 
204 


1 

(1 



3 

1 


66 

80 

9 


2] 

ll 
1 


District Totals 


3,651 


761 


18 


513 


676 


205 


1,279 


1 


10 


166 


33 


District 12 
























Cumberland 
Hoke 


4,755 
377 


52 5 
26 


8 




511 
76 


585 

5 



55 


2,934 
92 


2 




54 
4 


284 
6 


54 
113 


District Totals 


5,132 


549 


8 


587 


390 


55 


3,026 


2 


58 


290 


L67 


District 13 
























Bladen 
Brunswick 

Col umbus 


603 

647 

1,082 


7/ 

75 

144 


6 



21 


158 

69 
116 


113 

10 i 
158 


9 
9 

1 


200 

556 
553 


I 


1 


15 
3 
3 


21 

34 
85 


J 





District Totals 


2,332 


296 


27 


143 


372 


19 


1,109 


2 


21 


14M 


3 


District 14 
























Durham 


3,719 


913 


10 


869 


583 


42 


1,120 


2 


17 


88 


75 


District 15A 
























Alamance 


1,648 


133 


10 


179 


246 


57 


76 7 





17 


83 


166 


District 15B 
























Chatham 
Orange 


424 
1,192 


71 
570 


2 
5 


35 

90 


23 
L56 


12 
36 


26] 

46] 




i) 


3 
2 


9 

50 


8 
22 


District Totals 


1,616 


441 


7 


125 


179 


48 


722 





5 


59 


30 


District 16 
























Robeson 
Scotland 


1,901 
6 30 


609 

106 


3 



263 
171 


288 
53 


83 




988 

2 76 







3 

7 


28 

16 


36 
1 


District Totals 


2,531 


315 


3 


i\ 54 


■i-ll 


83 


1,264 





10 


44 


3 7 


District 17A 
























Caswel 1 

Rockingham 


176 
1,454 


12 
93 



9 


13 
552 


16 
144 


2 

2 


121 

761 









6 


7 

78 


5 
20 


District Total s 


1,630 


105 


9 


365 


160 


r\ 


872 





6 


85 


25 


District 17B 
























5tokes 
Sur ry 


314 
1,138 


51 
107 





46 
519 


37 
182 


3 
6 


166 
456 






2 
5 


28 
53 



10 


District Totals 


1,452 


138 


2 


365 


219 


9 


62] 





7 


81 


10 


r ct 18 


























7 , 7 30 


1,127 


43 


1,465 


1,450 


26 


3,256 


1 


21 


263 


78 



26 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 



District 19A 



Total 
Dispositions 



Cabarrus 
Rowan 


1,655 
1,223 


District Totals 


2,878 


District 19B 




Montgomery 
Randolph 


225 
1,005 


District Totals 


1,230 


District 20 




Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


S09 
733 
68 J 

662 

9 3 3 


District Totals 


3,310 


District 21 




Forsyth 


6,305 


District 22 




Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
I re del 1 


286 
1,382 

274 
1,278 


District Totals 


3,220 


District 23 




Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 


130 
205 

1,408 
392 


District Totals 


2,135 


District 24 




Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


19;.' 

117 
1 )8 
393 
180 


District Totals 


1,020 


District 25 




Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 


1,272 
1,070 
2,359 


District Totals 


4,701 


District 26 




Mecklenburg 


10,253 


District 27A 





Judge 



170 
162 

332 



118 
87 

205 



4 94 



!24 



265 



1 28 



Gaston 



2,643 



924 



1,408 



286 



General Civil 



Jury 



11 
1 

12 



2 7 



15 



18 



Clerk 



i81 
It.l 

542 



19 
140 

159 



Voluntary 
Dismissal 



251 

1/6 



427 



42 
116 

158 



7 33 



573 



533 



490 



5 79 



3 39 



140 



! 32 



943 



651 



25 2,486 1,164 



Other 



29 


3 


59 


37 


1 


')3 


6 


154 


68 


2 


65 


2 


118 


49 


21 


1 L4 





208 


110 


Id 


153 


16 


194 


109 


9 



4 3 



218 


28 


1,337 


1,288 


18 


38 





32 


22 


1 


1 19 


10 


209 


148 


4 


38 





13 


5 3 


10 


109 


5 


279 


26 7 


8 



23 



31 


I! 


24 





16 


14 


1 


30 


24 


3 


83 


4 


4 76 


258 


29 


37 


4 


49 


57 


3 



5 I 



14 





32 


2 


46 


27 


1 


3 


8 





13 





20 


27 


1 


4 9 


2 


71 


n 


4 


25 


1 


14 


24 


26 



7 7 



1 39 


6 


173 


269 


4 


1 36 





20 7 


190 


5 


253 


12 


563 


L92 


2 36 



245 



5 !0 



730 
641 

1,371 



29 

91,7 

596 



1,432 



2,185 



1,577 



291 



258 



478 

(,0(, 
486 
995 

2,087 
4,342 
1,656 



Domestic Relations 



Judge Jury 



< 'lerk 

8 
5 

13 



Voluntary 
Dismissal 



92 
70 



66 



20 



25 



10 



67 



15 



162 



3 

51 

54 



145 



1 78 



19'.) 



28 



168 



124 



9/ 



Other 



10 



9 
29 

38 



153 





2 


25 





352 


2 


5 


37 


14 


345 





50 


24 


9 


190 








20 





342 


4 


a 


39 


9 



32 



32 



150 





2 


36 


5 


817 


3 


10 


4 2 





101 


3 


4 


35 


17 


509 





9 


86 


6 



28 



48 





2 


1 


8 


124 








8 


1 


405 


(1 


2 


4 3 


8, 


215 


1 


3 


19 


4 


792 


1 


7 


71 


21 


85 





2 





11 


75 








3 





6 7 





1 


5 


4 


179 








12 


5 


72 


1 


1 


8 


8 



28 



1 


4 


70 


4 





2 


4 4 





1 


4 


64 


49 



6 3 



9') 



29 



127 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 





Total 




Dispositions 








1,060 




590 


net Totals 


1,650 


District 28 




Buncombe 


2,807 


- • - 


824 


Mc Dowel 1 


J 75 


Poll 


1 39 


Rutherford 


593 


Transyl vania 


39: 


District Totals 


2,423 


District 30 




Cherokee 


152 


Clay 


59 


Graham 


96 


Haywood 


575 


Jackson 


293 


Macon 


257 


Swain 


1 39 


District Totals 


1,571 


State Totals 


110,686 



1 5 3 
56 

209 



426 



283 



July 1, 1981 - June 30, 1982 



General Civil 



Voluntary 
Judge Jury Clerk Dismissal Other 



6 

4 

10 



31 



15 



S3 



171 



25 3 



221 



97 
93 

190 



315 



302 



1 38 


7 


41 


94 


3 


33 





66 


42 


13 


i ; ; 


1 


10 


25 


2 


58 


5 


76 


/I 


7 


41 


2 


28 


70 


2 



2/ 



3 





1 


1 





10 





13 


5 


l\ 


5 





1 


5 


I 


72 





60 


61 


8 


41) 





5 7 


4 


44 


38 





2 3 


'ID 


.8 


I' 


2 


8 


23 


2 



200 2 163 139 67 

16,048 432 19,419 15,659 1,977 



639 
299 

938 



1,577 



1,396 



784 



50,313 



Domestic Relations 



Judge Jury 



Voluntary 

Clerk Dismissal Other 



1 ! 



23 



70 

43 

113 



185 



135 



4 OS 


1 


9 


32 


4 


266 





9 


39 


7 


67 





2 


12 


7 


350 





2 


24 





218 


2 


1 


28 






18 



<n 





26 


26 


? 


19 








6 


? 


5 3 







18 


12 


3 34 





11 


28 


1 


!21 







5 


21 


105 







24 


18 


59 







12 






hh 



41 119 56 

645 4,327 1,800 



28 



OOro^CO<t^f CO 



OMNOOO CM 



NNOn 



Cf) 

H 

© 
u 

H 
U 

H 

Q S 

r 1 ^ 

H ^ 



m 
< 



e 
O 

3 
P 






o 

rO 




r- 


B 


^ 


o 






rO 






o 




Q. 


Sjfl 




\o 


a 


r*i 














yj 




O 




u 


so 


Im 


y-A 


O 


« 






o a. 

H .S2 

Q 



o o o o o o o 



fV ^O O-) C\J >H rH tj 

en co co en cr> en r-. 

lo co co o «3- <jd co 

-— I .— ( .-H CM CM i— ' •— ' 



•— i s . LO O CO lo LO 
LO en «3" LO CO LO Cn 

rH r-l m «3" 



UD CO CT> Cn CM 



O «d- lo r-» cm co 



o o o o o 



O LO CT> CO CO 



r- «=J- lo «tr i— i 

o a>^u3 co 

^-1 .-H «-t *3- 



CM LO CO CTl 


Oi 


O •— < LO CO 


Cn 


—h LO 


r*» 


<^ co cti r-. 


ONtSJOl 


Oi 


LD iHCO <H 


i< i 


LO CO 


co 


CM <xt CM CM 


«— I CM «-H 


LO 


«r- 1 t-H 


CO 


CO 


ro 


•— ' «-H 



r-- CM CO CTl UD 
O r-- CM LO iX3 
f— l CM CM LO 



VO CO O LO «^t 
LD LO r-. O CTi 
<3" CTl CTi CO 



O O O O O 



O CM <3" CM •— l 



CM LO «— I <— < 

co «^t- ^t cn 
CO r- ^h lo 



<tt <— I LO O *-H 

c\i h- cn <* co 
ro en «d- CO 



O CD O LO 



CO CM LD CO CM 



r-» en co cm 

*^f O CO LO 

lo «— t lo r-- 



en cr. 

LO LO 

CO i-i 



ro LO CO 
LO LO «— « 
CO CM —l 



LO CO "xt s . KO 

co co r-. cr. en 

.— i «^j- ro .— i «-h 



O LO LO O 



CO CO LO CM i— t 



CO CO *=J- I s - 
HOlDiD 
CM CO r-. CM 



.—I ro 



Z 8 
O & 

H Q 
PS o 

y ' 

H 
W 

o 

Q 

> 
u 

< 
z 

© 
en 



u.i 

< 

Si 

e 



.£ 

O 
i 



'V 



O LO CO .—I CM CO CO CO 



e ^1, 



OOLOLOOOO LO 






r-- .-H LO CO LO CO 



LO LO LO CM CO 



co ro r-x cm O 



r-* co «-h LO co 



LO O O CD O 



LO <— * LO CO t-H 

LO f— I LO CO 

^-l ^-i CO 



I O i-H ^f LO 
CM <-H CM CM 



co lo vr> ro ro 


o 


■s- r^ o *3- 


un 


"tN^t 


ID 


lO O 


ID 


r-^ no co csj 


CO oo .—i 


■e 


OJ >=f ■"-! 00 


•o 


CO -— < ^^ LO 




^f- CO 


r^ 


t— 1 ^-) <-H 



^h ro 



i-H CM 



O O O O O 



ro xj- o LO 

en <— i *r f-n 
ro ^h 



LO O O CD 



r-x lo co 



•— 1 ^-t <— < LO 



cm lo r--. r-. 


CM 


xj- cm en -xt 


en 


^H <^J- 


I.O 


i—i *& LO CO 


LO 


.— 1 LO i-H vo 


LO 


cn i— 4 co lo 


--i 


CM «xf 


LO 


CM CM CTi «— 1 


LT) 



r-H CO 



o o o o 



CO ^D 
O ■* 


OU1"J 
ro <\] Cvj 


o 


ro 


CM 

>— i 


LO 
C-.J 


CO KG 

en lo 

CM 


LO LO 

.— i ro 
-3- -—i 


CO 

M 
C ! 


CM 


O i 


CO 
CO 


CM 
CM 
CM 


O 

o 

CM 


lo ro 
r-- co 
cm ro 


CO CO 

CM <— I 


C J 

ro 

CM 


CM LO 
LO CO 


CM 

LO 


CO CO 
en r- 


cn 

C J 


LO 

L > 




uo r^ 


NdJO 


iO 


,-. 


r-s 


CM 


en kd 


co en 


«_j. 


CM 


o 


.-. 


CM 


CM 


O LO 


^i- 


LO 




LO CM 


CO 


ro 


o 


o 


c>-. 


m 


-1 UD 
f CO 
i— 1 <NJ 


CO <£> CM 
OrHLO 
•— 1 C\J CvJ 


C-J 


CD 
LO 
CM 


CM 

o 

CM 


ro 

LO 
CO 


LO CM 
O CM 

CM KO 


O CO 

r-. lo 

LO CM 


CO 
CO 


en 
ro 


IO 

CO 


CM 

Lr> 

C-J 


CM 
in 
ro 


CM 
ro 


LO CO 
^t LO 


CM 

I s - 
co 


CM 
LO 

CM 


CO 

LO 

ro 


en cm 

CO LO 
CM CM 


LO 

CO 
CM 


ro 
r- 


:: 


LO 


CO 




=d~ LT) 
CvJ P^ 


O CO CO 
^ ro ro 


C-J 
CSJ 


LO 


CO 
LO 


o r-x lo 

CO CM CD 
CM CM 


<-H LO 

cm r^- 


o 

LO 


CM 

LO 


LO 

<:■■] 
CO 


LO 


CD 

LJ" ) 

CTi 


o 

OJ 

ro 


CM CO 


I..O 

o 


ro 

ro 


ro 

CD 
en 


O I s - 

LO <— • 


CO 

r- 

lO 


«^t 


r- 


o 

LO 

ro 


I s - 


LO 
I s - 







( > 






,-n 


rn 






JJ 






4 > 


:.- 


c 


<r 


+ ■> 






o 




<■]! 


rr-, 






(/I 


3 


13 


-o 


■-. 


5- 


a > 


n, 


i~T" 


r-r 


■> 


n 


V- 


v_ 


j_) 


L/l 


l ^ 


fO 


-C 


o 


iQ 


m 


rr\ 


en 


L_> 


<_' 


L_> 


L.J 


OJ 


o_ 


o_ 



o c <— c 

*4- -r- QJ -r- 

D (U+J Lr 

fU "O S- i_ t/> 

OJ >x, rt3 >-, ro 



^ 



cu o 

t- c o 

OJ CU "i- 

4-> > i — -M 

S- fl E 4-> 

ra V- ro-r- 

UOQ.CL 



iyi E 

■ c "3 
O LO 



CU 1) O T3 i- 



cu ro cu o 



129 



— ' *—i ro 



JZ 




- 




X 




I — -* 




*-* 




c 




s^ 




H 




U 




mm 




2S 




H 




X 


fN 




X 


5 


X 


w 


&> 


I 


u 
n 


H 


> 


Z 


"3 




u 




V 


X 


— 


_ 


ax 


X 


S 


< 


3 


u 


Q 


X 


■a 


2 


S 


O 


o. 






H 


D 


< 


in 


i 


:/; 


N- 


« 


w 


u 


g 


c 


y 


V) 

M 


P 


< 




T5 
= 


S 


3C 


c 


o~ 


Q 


(*) 




o 


Q 


ex 

e 


2 


■3 


< 


c 


J 


a. 


m 


5y 


> 




u 




- 


v. 


< 


4J 

ex 


X 


*" 


w 




2 




w 




vj 




— 




c 




X 




u 





en r*- - r-» 

01 «tf- .-H 
cm CM i— I 



i < 



lo cr> r-. 

r-- <^> co 



<£l r^ "* LO 



LO LO CO eg 
CM CM -— t CM 



X © 
c a 



a --H-. 



^ ^H r- 1 ,— ( 



cri vo r-- c\j 
LO <j\ lo < — I 



<—* «3- ro 
r^v ro ro 

CM CM CM 



o^ CTi i— i co 

r-. cm «=r co 
*3- ro ro ro 



o o o 

r r <.£j 

lo lo lo 



co lo ro 

«— ' CO LO 
CM — < 



mNH r— < 
-HCO-H ^ 

r-~* co ro ro 



O o o lo 



r-». lo «d- •—* 



i£)C\J CO 
r-» «^j- en 



UD CO CO CM 



i— i PO LO 



•— l CM LO CO 



(^kDUD LO 



O LO LO O 

ro O LO CTi 

CD *-i LO O 

•-i i— • CM CM 



.-< <s- r-. ^ 

CM *-h *d" LO 

r-. CX> o^ LO 

«— * <— i CM CM 



LO CD LO t— i 

ro cri r--. cd 

LO LO CM 



«— • *-H «3" LO CTi 

OWNNO 
CM •— i CM CO CM 



O O CD O CD 



cn CO O r^- i— i ro 

ro cr> cm 00 f-n C\J 

r-. ^ ro lo lo r^. 

«— • •— • •— < i— < CM i— I 



(nj^oooin 
<3- cm o ro cr> 
ro ro «^- md ro 



CD lo lo o O lo 



oo^ano 

LO CM LO CTt vO 
ro ^j- CO •=}- O 
ro CM <3" CM ro 



CM *d" LO CD CO 

CO ^" «-H <3" »-* 
r— i ,— i ro ro t— i 



i .— i ro 



CMCON 
CO LO CO 
LO CO «=3- 



LO r- ro vo 

r- CTl CO LO 

CM ^ CO O j 

ro CM CM CM 



CTiLON 
CM O i— I 
CM LO a~> 



ro cr> «^f lo 



CD O O LO 

i— ( o <3" ro 

co ro ^t cm 

r-H CM CM CM 



*& ^t LO 

lo cm cn 
cm ro «^- 



lo r^ co 
O cm cr> 
lo co co 



lo ro 
lo r--. 
cn cm 



LO I-- 

lo r-^. 
r-- ro 



co CM 

CM CM 



ro «3- cm 
cm lo cr* 
^j- ro lo 



O CD o LO 



ro r-. cm 
O <3" CO 
i£> \£> O 



O ro LO CO 



cm cm cr> ro 

LO O ro CD 

i — i i — t ro 



LO ^ O 
ro O lo 
•—l CM CM 



LO -^f LO 
LO CO o 
«— I CM ch 



cu c: >, -f- 

— 0J n3 O 
O _J ^ 



^ > o aj «u 

C C tS> U i~ 

ru tJ t- C J- 

^ i- CD *T3 (TJ 

U- C5 D. > 3 



ro O OJ 
I D -I 



•l— CO 



-Q CU 
E -^ 



ro 3 f— 

>— s- o 

CO CO CJ 



30 



.-H O 


- i 


M CO 


C\J 


fooDiriHO 


r^. 


<X> r-t 


r^ 


■— « 


r i 


cxi c\j cn *—t ud 


,... , 



C/3 

H 

as 

o 
u 

H 

y 

2 

H 
« °? 

Q £ 
w2 
X S 

£ 2 
in £ 

W H 

CZJ = 

< S 

U Q 



a s 

5 •A 



— to 



■a 0* 



S o 
o a 
H .2 

Q 



ud ro <T> 



CM CM 
LO «=r 


a, 


CD CD 
LO O 
CM •— < 


CO 

lo 
co 


CD LO 

r—t LO 


r — 


cn lo 

*3" LO 


o 

CM 


*T CM 
•—I CM 
CM «d" 


CD 
CO 
ID 


lo co 
•-" o 
CM -=J" 


a 

CD 


"3- 00 

r- i CM 
.— I Cn 


CM 

o 


r~~ co 

CO CD 
—i CO 


O 
LO 

CO 



co 00 

CO <-< 
CM 


ID 


LO 
LO 


CO 
Lf) 


CD 
LO 


LO 

M 


CD 
LO 


LD 
LO 


CO ^T 
LO CD 


O CM 


Ol 


LO 


CO 


H 


co 


H 


CD 


r-~ lo 


^J- LO 
CD «3" 

CM CO 


CO 
CM 
PO 


CD 

( .1 


CO 
CM 


CM 


') 


o 

•t 


cn 


r^ cm 

CO O0 


«3" CM 
CM CXt 

«3- ■— I 


ID 
CD 


o 

CT, 


o 

CO 

LO 


CO 
LO 


CD 


<3 


o 

CO 

LO 


^t CO 
i— 1 CO 
CO .— 1 



CO o 


CO 


CD CD 


CD 


CO -3- CM CO CO 


to 


■=1- r-~ 




.— 1 CO 


r~- 


CM n-- o *r co 


a) 


CM 


ro 






r— t t— 1 


CO 



cn cxi 


.—i 


i-H CO 


M 


lo CO <x> cxj co 


cl 


<— i r-- 


<T> 


ro C\J 


LO 


(\j n «^ in o 


r . 


m r— 1 


d" 


«— t 


«— « 


«— < 


oo 



O CO 
CD CO 
CM <— 1 


co 

CT, 
CO 


•—< cn 

CO r i 


o 

CM 


cn o i-h o o 

CM CM CD CO CD 


o 
a, 

CO 


r-~ co 

CD CO 

r- CO 


O 

CD 
CD 


CO LO 

ct. r~. 

CD 


CO 
CD 


*=f CO cn CD CNI 

CD co r^ cd co 

CM <3 CO ^ LO 


o 



O CD O CD O 



o cd co cn o cn 



lo co 


CO 


LO LO 


CT. 


cx> co co cxi co 


O 


LT) CXI 


r^»- 


CXI o 




O cn co lo co 




<X> CXI 


CO 


CXI o 


CXI 


co r-^ ix) co cn 


co 



z s 

O g- 

w u 
u ' 

H 

C^ 

W 

o 

Q 

Q 
Z 

< 

> 

u 
- 
< 

w 

z 

w 
w 



SCO 

B 
es 

96 
& 



a* 
S 

•s 

E 
<y 
On 

i 

SB 

© 
as 



r^- t-H 



a vi 



.£ — 



8 2 



I" 



8& 
S 4 * 






CO CO 


,_( 


r-. r^ 


^ 


LO VTJ 


r-H 


CTt 


o 


K£> CXI 


cn 


•— t 


CXI 



l-H CXI 



CO CNI 


LO 


CO <3" 


rj 


t— I CO 


^3- 


CO CNI 


CO o 


CO 


CO CD 


o 


cm n^ 


CT> 


»a- CD 



.-H <^ 

LO CO 


O 
CM 


LO ^ 
CO ^H 


cn 


Oi o 

CO o 

CM 


cn 
ro 

CM 


cn CX\ 

*t co 


CO 
ro 
CM 


LO O 


O 


o o 


O 


o o 


LO 


o o 


O 


LO CM 
CM r-~ 
^H CM 


CO 
CM 


co *d- 


ro 


LO LO 


CO 


LO O 

o o 


LO 

o 



IT) H 
CTt CO 


cn 

ro 


CO LO 

«3- CD 
CM CM 


cn 
■a- 
CM 


■— 1 CM 

CM i-l 


LO 


CD "3- 
t— t CM 


ro 

CJ 

CM 


cni cn 
CO o 


■a- 
00 


r— CM 
r-H CM 
CO CO 


CTi 

ro 


LO CTi 
O CD 
^H ro 




cm cn 
co cn 

i-H CO 


ro 

LO 



, — 


CJ, 




C 


(I) 




* 


-^ 


L^ 


u 


T3 


o 


C_J 


as 



•r- t/1 



4-J 3 Q -r- 



r- CO 


LD 


lo r-^ 


C-J 


OlOOLfl "J" 


cxi r- 


O 


r-^ cxj 


cr> 


^3- co r*. >— < cxi 



lo cr> 


-:t 


vO cr> 


lo 


cxj en co co CO 


IO 


cn ^-j- 


*TJ 


CXJ LO 


CO 


roOOODNt 


(J) 


«— ( «-H 


CO 






r— i t— < «— t 


ct 



r— t— i CO 
CO ■— i cn 

t-H t— I CM 



O <D 
LO LO 
CNI CNI 



CO CM I"-. CO CO CO 

CD «3 -<cr CD CD CM 

•-< r-i r-H ^H CD 



o o o c o 



CD LO 
CM LO 


r- 
<* 


■*' o 
o o 

CO .— 1 


CM 
ro 


cn oo r-« 

CO rt CD 
■— 1 CM ^t 


O 
m 


«T 
rj 


r-~ 
CJ, 
CM 


rt rt 


CJ 


HH 


^H 


lo cn CO 


LO 


LO 


cr, 


cn cn 

■-H CM 


ro 
CM 


CM CM 

n*. co 

CO ^-1 


o 

CM 


O cn co 
OO cn o 
CNI cm r-^ 


CT, 


CO 

ro 


CJ 

co 


CD o> 
p^. CD 


CO 


cd cn 
o o 

CM CO 


LO 
LO 


CTt CM CO f—i CO 

r- co «3- oo cd 


CC- 
CT, 
ro 



o •— 
cn O 



cc 


(l; 


g 


>1 


c 


f> 


i_ 


-C_ 


c 


'■y 


cn 


o 


U 


m 




C 


o 




4-, 


CT 


CC 


i 


LX 


1/) 


_) 



CTs C^ o~> CO «— * 



CO CM O <— i *d" LO 



■^ C^O UD 



— ro 



X. 


; s« 


H 


'Z ro 


2 


.2 se 






— 


C ^ 


O 


■ — 


u 


- 




« © 


H 


W X 


U 


tfi os 






OS 


< 


H 


o 

c* 


to 2 


© 


_ 90 




U 00 

w 2 


c 
.2 * 

-n « 


= 5 


r 


H £ 




Z « 

MM O 
«5 


8 $ 


to iZ 




* ex 


T3 


to .5 
< 5 


S o 
c c 
H S 


U Q 


Q 


cfi "S 




Z 3 




O g- 




H 5 


e 


— « 


.' 


w ^ 




C£ "o 






el r- 


TIC 

Ages 


Q 4 




x n 


W sO 


a § 




£S 


C ~ 


O o 




Q3 


00 

£ I 




< * 


fcn '-5 




< 5 




£_ 


i 


J - 




■"■ o 




•^ as 


c 
.2 o 


zt 


13 tX 

<* < 






^ X 




"^ ox 


= 


« < 




w 




^ 


IX 


w 


"5 .S 


w 


(2 I 


b 




o 




X 




w 




w 




< 





OCO CNJ ^f «d" 

CM CT> *^ O LO 

— * CM 



LO kO C\J <d" ID CO 



Of^CO^f 

CM «— « 



LOOiDO 



.—I CM CO O 
CMLD CM r-*- 



LOCM ^ CO 

CO co r— r-*. 
cm ro CM CM 



100^1*0 CM 



OO O O 



rOi£) CTi CO <T> 

«^-lo — < co rv. 

.—<.—■. cm ■— « <— • 



en en LO o m 

LOCM O O O 
•3- <H Lfl w-i 



*_ 


-> 


u 


H3 "O 


O) QJ 




i/i 




X .,- 


•r- T3 


■r, 




t/l 


OJ > 


> OJ 










T5 S- 


O 


Li. 




<D 


Q — 



N CM OJ M 

r--. *d- «=J- *3- 

<— l CTi CM 



O CD O O 



r- LD -3- *j- LO 



O LO CO CM 

ro o o cn 

•— I CM *d" CO 



iHN i£) LD CJ> 



cm oo CO r-- lo 



O O O O LO 



■^J- O CM CO 

roonro 

KO «£> CO s ! 

»— • CM r-H ^H 



^ O LO CM 
i—l CO i— I 



tMioc^ in n on 
ro r»- CO lo o lo 

«—) t\|H to 



O O O O LO 



O CM CM CD CO LO 



CM r-- CO ro CD CD 
CTt r— I PO CTi CO CM 

HHHfOH O 



CO LO ro o <3- «— i 

CM r-H t— I f-H t— I CO 



ro ro ^j- lo ■ 



CM LO LO CO 



O CD CD O CD 



CD CM <3" LO CM CO 

o~t lo <—* ro r-- r-- 

cd r- CO lo o en 

^ ro co r— i ro cm 



i— JZ r— -a 
i — (/) t- n3 

<c *x zz >~ 



O (D Ol>) 

>, w r d (U 

L -r u ro u 

QjX3 +J+J C 
> AD -r— ro n3 



lo CO lo 

lo r--. r^- 

C0 LO ^1- 



i— i ro lo cm 

OCTi N CM 
t-H LO CJn CT* 



wocn i—i 
r-^ r~- lo o 
cm O ro r- 



o CM LO en 



ro cm ^f 
LO o o 
r— i cm ro 



CTi r-. f-n 

LO LO LO 
CM CM i-H 



^1 'J v.l 

•— * cr> r-- 

^j- ^J" CM 



r- cm »^j- 

CM *— < O 

lo r-» co 



i— u 





01 


n 


OJ 




< 


*■■ 


' > 


ftj 


S- 






'■ 


ft) 


rn 


m 


'-■ 


<_) 



CO co 



o o 

IX) CD 
O LD 



aio cri 



O CO CO 

us o r~- 

HM t-H 



132 



HOHNfoom 



03 

H 

P< 
P 

© 

u 

H 

U 

OS 
H 
02 2 

Q S 
W2 

Z « 

CD 

w 

03 
< 
U 
03 

© 
H 

W 

u 

H 
03 

W 

S 
© 

Si 

< s 



3 * 



m 
a 

'C 

3 

Q 

XI 
<s* 

O 

a 



«< 

-a 
r: 
« 

a© 



.2 

s 


f-1 


ri <Ti CM l/) l/) 


CM 




r-^ CM C\J 00 LO 


t.O 


se 


ae 




CM 


Si 








L'i 


o 










oi uo r-* cri cj\ 


CTi 


o 


» 


«— * 


.— i 
CO 








< 










§ 


«3- t— i en o lo 


*t 




CO CM CO CT* CO 


«t 




A 


^j- en en r—i 


^J 



1« 



5* 



o a 
H .2 

a 






.s « 



8 I 
2 S 



O O O O LO 



Lf) CM (\J O (£) Ol 

cnwinON lo 

C> co lo cm lo r^. 

f-( i— 1 r- 1 i— i cm •—* 



«d- lo cr» ro cm 
cm r-» ro oi cr> 



r-» cm cm lo r-^ 



ocoLn«3-n 
co cm «3- ««d- 



00 ^ 



t— « ro r-i cr» «x> lo ^j- 

co «3- lo <3- «— i en r- 



IT) O LO o o o o 



o «=t lo cm lo r-. en 



cm <T* lo lo co r*- CT"> «-i 
lo lo a> r^ cr> lo co r-. 

•— < LO CM CM i— » LO 



> 

u 

w 
z 
w 
o 

to 
© 

03 

W 

o 



M 

< 



•a •» 
I* 



H a* 



LO o o o o 



cmvidcoh o 

O hc\J lT)N CT> 

co cm cm cm en cm 



r- o ro cm o 

LO CM <M CM 



o o o o o o o 



co rv co a> n ro t-n 

LO LD LO LO O LO CT» 
i-H «— I CO CM CM 



i lo ej\ en 



HONHOlin^ 
l^OHfOHLOin 
(\1 H iH M t ID ^t 



CO CM CM O O CO -3" 
.-h CO CM <— ' «— ' 



O i— o 


> 


u 


+j 


t\) 




t/1 i — LJ- 






u 


cu 




S- CD S- 


>i 


S- 




j^ 


E 


OJ 3 CD 


tfl 




■^ 


o 


03 


■o O -* -C 


c 


00 




j- 


>%-C 


C Q f— +-> 


to 




O0 


CD 


T3 iTD 


(U U O 3 


S~ 


a 




.c 


r— i_ 


n: £: a_ or 


1— 




CO 


L_J 


C_> O 



O I/) C C -4-» 

i- (T) itj n; 3 o 



133 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 



Filings 



July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 

Dispositions 



District 1 






Camden 


M.l 


97 


Chowan 


950 


883 


Curri tuck 


-; ■; : 


364 


Dare 


442 


411 


Gates 


298 


)15 


Pasquotank 


781 


832 


Perquimans 


548 


317 


District Totals 


3,250 


3,219 


District 2 






Beaufort 


1,553 


1,570 


Hyde 


144 


139 


Martin 


1,107 


1,167 


Tyrrel 1 


2 34 


234 


Washi ngton 


660 


658 


District Totals 


3,698 


3,768 


District 3 






Carteret 


1,418 


1,356 


Craven 


2,440 


2,454 


Paml ico 


489 


533 


Pitt 


3,259 


3,201 


District Totals 


7,606 


7,544 


District 4 






Dupl in 


1,826 


1,907 


Jones 


216 


212 


Onslow 


2,159 


2,240 


Sampson 


2,233 


2,331 


District Totals 


6,434 


6,690 


District 5 






New Hanover 


3,498 


3,531 


Pender 


654 


550 


District Totals 


4,152 


4,081 


District 6 






Bertie 


1,019 


1,043 


Hal i fa/ 


2,073 


2,073 


Hertford 


851 


842 


Northampton 


v.'.t. 


891 


District Totals 


4,799 


4,849 


District 7 






Edgecombe 


5,305 


5,181 


Nash 


3,801 


3,816 


Wi 1 son 


3,068 


3,156 


District Totals 


12,174 


12,153 


Distri • 






Greene 


442 


476 


Lenoi r 


3,750 


3,750 


„ - / ' < 


3,031 


3,263 


District Totals 


7,223 


7,489 


District 9 






Frankl l n 


1,175 


1,154 


G ra n vi 1 1 e 


1,234 


1,245 


'-''■<■.',<: 


1,040 


1,092 


. 


2,612 


2,763 


Warren 


727 


657 



District 10 
Wake 



District 11 



District Totals 

District 14 
Durham 

District 15A 
Alamance 

District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 
District 16 



)i strict Totals 



', , 78?! 



6,911 



Montgomery 
Randolph 

District Totals 



Filings 



10,273 



Harnett 


1,624 


Johnston 


2,954 


Lee 


1,304 


District Totals 


5,882 


District 12 




Cumberland 


9,568 


Hoke 


697 


District Totals 


10,265 


District 13 




Bladen 


1,734 


Brunswick 


906 


Col umbus 


2,832 



5,472 



12,772 



2,851 



1,017 
1,549 

2,566 



1,173 
1,685 

2,858 



Dispositions 



9,847 



1,675 
2,910 
1,283 



9,297 
677 

9,974 



1,722 

943 

3,218 

5,883 



12,344 



2,968 



1,001 
1,581 

2,582 



Robeson 


6,165 


5,972 


Scotland 


1,322 


1,327 


District Totals 


7,487 


7,299 


District 17A 






Caswell 


406 


412 


Rockingham 


2,600 


2,750 


District Totals 


3,006 


3,162 


District 17B 






Stokes 


467 


494 


Surry 


2,360 


2,341 


District Totals 


2,827 


2,835 


District 18 






Guil ford 


10,326 


10,150 


High Point 


4,871 


4,863 


District Totals 


15,197 


15,013 


District 19A 






Cabarrus 


2,060 


2,099 


Rowan 


3,033 


3,072 


District Totals 


5,093 


5,171 


District 19B 







1,136 
1,660 

2,796 



34 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 





Filings 


Dispositions 


District 26 


Filings 


Dispositions 


District 20 










Anson 


1,073 


1,087 


Mecklenburg 


20,904 


21,507 


Moore 


1,765 


1,696 








Richmond 


2,058 


2,205 


District 27A 






Stanly 
Union 


1,395 
1,546 


1,395 
1,743 


Gaston 


4,110 


4,177 


District Totals 


7,937 


8,126 


District 27B 






District 21 






Cleveland 
Lincoln 


3,279 
787 


3,349 

774 


Forsyth 


8,949 


8,915 


District Totals 


4,066 


4,123 


District 22 






District 28 






Alexander 
Davidson 


439 
1,991 


477 
2,215 


Buncombe 


4,557 


4,262 


Davie 
Iredell 


433 
2,735 


507 
2,550 


District 29 






District Totals 


5,598 


5,749 


Henderson 
Mc Dowel 1 


690 
473 


666 

478 


District 23 






Polk 
Rutherford 


272 
1,221 


247 
1,255 


Al leghany 


'1 i] 


46 7 


Transyl vania 


496 


597 


Ashe 
Wilkes 


290 
2,170 


231 
2,429 


District Totals 


3,152 


3,243 


Yadkin 


808 


920 


District 30 






District Totals 


3,699 


4,047 


Cherokee 


316 


302 


District 24 






Clay 
Graham 


75 

152 


68 

144 


Avery 


256 


258 


Haywood 


1,149 


1,112 


Madison 


l.'4 


131 


Jackson 


408 


456 


Mitchell 


Vh: 


219 


Macon 


442 


594 


Watauga 


426 


455 


Swain 


92 


79 


Yancey 


\'A 


14 i 


District Totals 


2,634 


2,555 


District Totals 


1,152 


1,206 








District 25 








Total Filed 


Total Disposed 


Burke 


1,523 


1,543 


State Totals 


215,625 


216,720 


Caldwell 


2,032 


2,240 








Catawba 


2,639 


2,581 








District Totals 


6,194 


6,364 









135 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE 
PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 











OFFENSES 








CONDITIONS 












Deli 


nquent 






Undisciplined 


Dependent Neglected 


Abused 


Grand 
Total 


Children 
Before 




Capital 


Other 
Felony 


Misde- 
meanor 


Total 


Truanc 


y Other 


Total 


Court For 
First Time 


District 1 


























Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 












1 
6 
8 

28 
3 




28 
10 
12 


57 

1 




29 
16 
20 


85 

4 




2 







1 




3 

1 




1 

2 

o 



i 

1 


1 
1 



3 




5 
3 

fi 
2 
O 
4 
1 



3 

4 


1 

4 


6 
37 

28 

82 



Oh 
10 


6 
2/ 
22 
21 


36 

8 


District Totals 





46 


108 


154 


2 


5 


7 


6 


21 


12 


]96 


120 


District 2 


























Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrel 1 
Washington 









12 

2 3 

13 

2 

9 


46 


2 7 
6 

18 


58 
2 3 

41) 

8 

2 7 


1 





(1 


1 
1 
2 

1 


2 
1 
2 



l 


16 
1 

10 





36 
4 

28 
2 
3 



3 
1 


1 


112 
32 
8,1 
10 
12 


56 
13 
54 
10 
21 


District Totals 





59 


9 7 


156 


1 


5 


6 


27 


73 


5 


267 


153 


District 3 


























Carteret 
Craven 
Pamlico 
Pitt 









4 5 

35 

5 

159 


35 

6 7 
4 

106 


80 

102 

9 

265 


6 



5 


1 

10 

10 


3 

10 



16 


6 
29 


41 


2 
28 

2 
18 


2 

6 
1 
2 


93 

1/4 
12 
141 


46 
71 
12 
06 


District Totals 





244 


212 


456 


7 


21 


28 


76 


60 


10 


680 


226 


District 4 


























Dupl in 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 





o 




15 



64 

21 


18 

5 

109 

47 


33 
5 

17 3 

68 


2 






4 
1 
4 
3 


6 
1 

4 
3 


3 
3 

29 
26 


2 
1 

30 
27 






11 
1 


44 
10 

24/ 
124 


24 

10 

114 

61 


District Totals 





100 


179 


2 79 


2 


12 


14 


60 


60 


12 


426 


209 


District 5 


























New Hanover 
Pender 







210 

5 


564 
13 


774 

18 


17 



58 

4 


75 

4 


10 
2 


13 

14 


6 
1 


878 

39 


278 
19 


District Totals 





215 


577 


792 


17 


62 


79 


12 


27 


7 


91/ 


29 7 


District 6 


























Bertie 
Halifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 








4 

VI 
4 

16 


10 

18 3 

38 

11 


14 

157 
42 
2 7 










14 
3 
6 




14 
3 


3 
16 

22 
3 


5 

1 1 
17 
10 


10 

11 
6 
1 


32 

809 
8,9 

47 


32 

109 

48 

(4 


District Totals 





58 


182 


24(1 





2 3 


23 


44 


43 


27 


377 


223 


District 7 


























Edgecombe 
Nash 
Wi 1 son 








119 
48 

4 1 


173 

169 
88 


29 X 
21/ 

129 


4 
1 
1 


18 

14 
8 


22 

16 
9 


12 
46 
17 


23 

28 
28 


7 
2 

5 


J56 

308, 
188 


134 
126 
96 


District Totals 





208 


4 30 


638 


6 


40 


46 


76 


79 


14 


862 


366 


District 8 


























Greene 
Lenoir 

Wayne 


1 
9 




2 

2 8 
69 


32 

124 
53 


35 

152 
122 



6 
9 


1 
21 
12 


1 
2/ 

81 


1 

22 

2; : 


2 

41 
84 


1 

2 
10 


40 
244 
266 


15 
110 
119 


District Totals 


1 


99 


209 


369 


16 


34 


49 


51 


12/ 


13 


64 9 


844 



136 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE 
PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1981 —June 30, 1982 











OFFENSES 








CONDITIONS 












Delinquent 






Jndisciplined 




Dependent 


Neglected 


Abused 


Grand 
Total 


Children 
Before 




Capital 


Other 

Felony 


Misde- 
meanor 


Total 


Truancy 


Other Total 


Court For 
First Time 


District 9 


























Frankl in 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 




[) 



1 




7 
19 

36 
70 




14 
14 
25 
43 
3 


21 

33 

61 

114 

3 


1 







8 
8 

4 
11 
3 


9 
8 
4 
11 
3 


3') 
8 
5 

10 
6 


16 

8 
18 
20 
13 


2 

1 

6 

2 
5 


8 3 
58 
94 
157 
30 


23 

30 
24 

6 3 
14 



District Totals 

District 10 
Wake 

District 11 



Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 
District 12 



Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 

District Totals 
District 14 



Durham 




District 


15A 


Alamance 




District 


15B 



Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 
District 16 



1 32 



117 



51 

45 
34 

1 30 



44 



165 



99 
72 
4 i 

214 



2 32 



2 82 



150 

1 20 

77 

34 7 



',4 



31 



18 

21 

7 

46 



35 



52 



21 

25 

7 

6 3 



64 



■14 



75 



28 



19 



126 



25 

46 
52 

12 3 



102 



5 
32 

3/ 



40 
51 
48 

1 39 



36 1 



82 



36 
109 

L45 



65 
9 7 

262 



46 ■; 



16 3 



4 3 
14 1 

184 



4 
4 
6 

14 



2 
15 

8 

25 



17 



35 



1 
9 

10 



6 
19 
14 

39 



18 



37 



3 
15 

18 



21 



6 3 



31 



10 
11 

21 



63 



1/7 



4 3 




20 

20 



16, 



22 



11 



10 



422 



408 



3 


62 


6 


242 


7 


58 


2 


212 


9 


6 


3 


102 



556 



2 


6 





79 


9 


4 


3 


132 





53 


5 


182 



393 



725 



284 



60 
192 

252 



154 



202 



106 

105 

57 

268 



Cumberland 





245 


447 


692 


25 


266 


291 


20 3 


120 


53 


1,359 


652 


Hoke 





2 3 


25 


48 





9 


9 


33 


12 


1 


103 


48 


District Totals 





266; 


472 


740 


26 


2 75 


300 


2 36 


rt; 


64 


1,462 


700 


District 13 



























27 
61 
97 

186 



152 



129 



40 
142 

182 



Robeson 





171 


189 


360 


9 


21 


30 


79 


60 


25 


554 


216 


Scotland 





33 


63 


96 


2 


2 


4 


8 


30 


1 


139 


74 


District Totals 





204 


252 


466 


11 


2 3 


34 


87 


90 


26 


69 3 


290 


District 17A 


























Caswell 





8 


5 


13 


1 





1 


2 


7 


2 


25 


20 


Rockingham 


1 


90 


102 


19 3 





11 


11 


4 


21 


8 


237 


86 


District Totals 


1 


98 


107 


206 


1 


11 


12 


6 


28 


10 


262 


106 


District 17B 


























Stokes 





20 


52 


72 


3 


11 


14 


3 


3 


1 


9 5 


37 


Surry 





4 8 


66 


113 


15 


3 


18 


10 


21 


3 


165 


86 


District Totals 





68 


11/ 


186 


18 


14 


32 


13 


24 


4 


258 


123 


District 18 



























Guilford 



358 



466 



864 



71 



79 



150 



110 



95 



32 



1,241 



542 



137 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE 
PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 

OFFENSES CONDITIONS 

Children 
Delinquent Undisciplined Dependent Neglected Abused Before 



Other Misde- Grand Court For 

( apital Felony meanor Total Truancy Other Total Total First Time 

District 19A 

Cabarrus 30 61 91 4 14 18 18 21 4 152 102 

Rowan 83 205 288 87 50 137 164 48 9 646 121 

District Totals 113 266 379 91 64 155 182 69 13 798 223 

District 19B 

Montgomery 2 36 38 1 7 8 5 51 37 

Randolph 2 119 147 268 7 55 62 31 18 7 386 171 

District Totals 2 121 183 306 8 62 70 31 23 7 437 208 

District 20 

Anson 31 32 63 1 1 2 4 69 29 

Moore 54 83 137 5 3 8 10 85 18 258 84 

Richmond 121 52 173 4 4 13 29 6 225 92 

Stanly 1 84 59 144 2 2 7 27 5 185 61 

1 63 113 177 2 9 11 25 42 5 260 130 

District Totals 2 353 339 694 10 17 27 55 187 34 997 396 

District 21 

Forsyth 84 231 315 8 46 54 34 86 18 507 426 

District 22 

31 
163 
26 

114 



Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
I re del 1 







n 

4 


6 
84 
10 
25 


20 
90 

11 
150 


26 

1/4 

21 

179 


? 

8 
3 


12 

49 

3 

48 


14 

49 

11 
51 


District 


Totals 


4 


125 


271 


41)0 


13 


112 


125 


District 


23 
















Al leghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 







1 




2 

8 

33 

45 


3 

30 

128 

83 


5 
38 

16," 

128 


5 
6 
19 
7 




3 

17 

2 


5 

9 

66 

9 


District 


Total s 


1 


88 


244 


333 


57 


22 


79 


District 


24 
















Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 





2 





1 : 

3 

12 

15 





2 
9 
22 
4 


73 

7 
21 
37 

4 


3 


i) 
1 




13 
5 
2 

13 
3 


16 
5 

;• 

14 
3 


District 


Totals 


2 


" 1 


37 


142 


4 


36 


40 


District 


25 
















Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 










131 
18 
90 


77 

(,■', 
61 


208 
81 

151 


13 
28 
20 


36 

58 
18 


49 
86 

■',','. 


District 


Totals 





239 


201 


440 


(,1 


112 


173 


District 


26 

















i. 


4 


1 


51 


10 


82 


HI 


395 


1 


4 


(1 


37 


6 


26 





262 






4 


1 


;•? 


59 


60 


18 


39 



1 


15 


3 


73 


4 


321 


5 


199 



93 116 11 745 354 



13 
65 

104 
52 

58 125 13 608 234 



1 96 40 

8 41 26 

44 20 

1 64 34 
13 9 

20 46 10 258 129 



120 

106 
175 

96 77 13 799 401 



1 


5 


4 


1/ 


5 


16 


9 


3 


1 


5 



19 


22 





298 


22 


21 


2 


212 


55 


34 


11 


?m 



Mecklenburg 364 585 949 17 88 105 12 118 1,184 601 

District 27A 

Gaston 154 342 496 28 28 49 27 4 604 295 

District 27B 

Cleveland 60 116 176 3 7 10 15 39 10 250 123 

Lincoln 4 42 46 1 11 12 7 15 3 83 43 

District Totals 64 158 222 4 18 22 22 54 13 333 166 



I3X 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE 
PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 











OFFENSES 








CONDITIONS 












De 


inquent 






I'ndiscipl 


ned 


Dependent N« 


glected Ab 


used 


Grand 
Total 


Children 
Before 




Capital 


Other 
Felony 


Misde- 
meanor 


Total 


Truanc 


y Other 


Total 


Court For 
First Time 


District 28 


























Buncombe 





81 


L69 


250 


43 


207 


250 


84 


71 


1') 


674 


237 


District 29 


























Henderson 
Mc Dowel 1 
Polk 

Rutherford 
Transylvania 









8 
22 

2 
56 

2 


51 
53 
3 
47 
17 


59 

75 

5 

1 3 

19 


39 

18 



27 

7 


24 
9 
2 

21 
1 


63 

27 

2 

48 

8 


22 
8 


48 
6 


20 
20 

51 
16 


5 
2 


9 
3 


169 

132 

7 

259 

52 


83 

75 

6 

97 

24 


District Totals 





90 


171 


26 1 


91 


57 


148 


84 


107 


l r J 


6 1 9 


285 


District 30 


























Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 













6 
1 

17 
10 
1 



8 

1 
6 
3 
6 

11 
5 


14 

2 

6 

20 

16 

12 

5 


1 


7 

1 
1 

n 





9 
3 
8 
2 


1 



16 
4 
9 
2 


2 

2 
1 
8 

1 



4 


17 

3 

10 
6 
2 
2 


6 


3 

1 





40 

4 

10 

57 
28 
2 i 
13 


33 
4 
7 
57 
28 
23 
1 3 


District Totals 





35 


40 


75 


10 


22 


32 


18 


40 


10 


175 


It/, 


State Totals 


20 


4,761 


7,879 


12,660 


627 


1,693 


2,320 


1,903 2 


,527 


490 


19,900 


8,980 



39 



o men o 

«— < Csj CSJ CO 



CM CD CO OS. «3" 

ID <H ps «y- CTi 
CSJ i— 1 *j- 



ON LO CO f-< 



o n n o o oj -q- c\j 



O CO t-h o O *3" 



cnj o~> «— » csj «3- 



o o r^ >-t co 



00000*— i o —i 



o co o o o co 



o co o o co 



O O CSJ «— l CO 



CO CM LO O LO 



oronoOH^ ,-h 



O O «-H O O -. CMVO-tCM r-j O O LO O LD LO-H ^ CMCOOO,-. ^ 



m tH Lo c\j o t «^ 



Csj CO LO O LO 



ro ^j- r-- ^j- CO 



w 



i— i o o «— <oot\i «a- 



CTi .— i CM O CM <^f- 



I CSJ .— I .—I LO 



O i— I Csj O CO 



o tn^m «3- 



Z 

fcH2 

u - 
S = " 

>H - 

^7 - 

OS £ 

U in 

9? 



<3- <— < lo «—< o «3- cm r- 



I— I 1— i O O O Csj O *d" 



O O O O O «— ' o «-h 



■— ' <— ' O O O >— i O CO 



O Csj Csj O O co i— i CO 



O CM CM O O CO r-n CO 



ooooooo o 



O CO CSJ CSJ i—l CO 



*-i <-t CO O O LO 



LO o CO O O CO 



KO i— ' LO O O Csj 



(XI •— < CO CD i— * r-. 



i lo o o r*- 



i O CO O H o 



I LO <3" OS O 



co cr> co at «3" 



HUDinO Csj 



O CO CO O LO 



r-. csj "cj- «3- r^ 



CSJ «-H O CO LO 



LO O LO 



LO -^ Csj UD 



LO »-H <d~ r-H 



l <^" OS Csj LO 



Csl rv rHr-l .— t 



O CO CSJ LO LO 



O CO CSJ LO LO 



o o o o o 



Q 



lo «3- CTi r-. ch 


-1 


en co o co 


i f- j 


CO ^ Cn C\J 


CO 


<d" o 


CO Csj CO Csj 


CO 


r-> LO «-H o 


«..o 


«3- r-* r^ 


o 


r^ csj 



ONlDOOOlU") LD 



OLOMDN <3" 



•— • O CO OsJ 


T.> 


r- «^f «-h o 


Csj 


CO LD LO 


' J 


«d- co 


CO 



co co r-. lo 


en 


r— • O CO CSJ 


H 


Csj O 


*$• O LO 


r_H 


•Cf ro<t 


CNJ 


CO csj 



CO lo r-. co co 



•D > i- qj 
E O &- S- - 

TJ JZ ™ ro 



i- .— en 

O C i— c 

4- -p- a> •<- 

^ a) -p s- x: 

T3 "O S_ I- CO 
ai >> ro >> f0 



(U QJ-r 

+->>.— +-> 

i- iJ E+J 

(D I- (O-r 
<_> C_> D_ Q. 



■r W O 1/1 



3 O C rO Q 



CD '"D O 00 



> -M 



fO s- 


L. 


■r- 


<D n3 o «TJ 


3i aj 


+J 


S- 


•r- 4- 4- jr 


"O 


L0 


1 J 


+J t- +j +j 


2 c 






5— . — i^ S— 


a; Qj 


r i 


x: 


QJ 13 <D O 



140 



— ** 



*-h O <T> O 

»-h ^n r- o 

rnmn oo 



m c\j r-- 

fOOH 



LD 00^ 


r^ 


en ^r 


m 


CTi LO co 


CM LO O 


a-. 


i-« <T» 




LD LO LD 


LO <3~ i- I 


r— 1 


«tf 


LO 


t— 1 i-H 



O •-• O — • 



OOUIHfO CT> 



coon t-H 



O^DN CO 



OJOO C\J 



O O O^ CT> 



O co CM LO 



in ro r-» in 



O f-H «-h cm 



O O cm «— i ro in 



o ro in oo 



0O CO CVJ 


ro 


uio« 


Ol 


CO CO IT) *3- LO 


in 


C\J »-H CvJ 


UD 


lo O 


u-i 


m rHrHM 


en 



z 

WW 
>H 
PC* 

ou 

«s 

as" 

IS 

-5 

Q 






3 



ihh ro 



00 m en lo 



CO lo d ro 



<3- in ro cm 



««3- r-- r*- 
in in cm 
cm cm «— ' 



CM <Ti cm ro 



cm co r^ r^ 



o •— < lo lo 



r»- cm co cm cm <—* 



r^ lo ro o co at 



O o lo cm «— i en 



r-» vo r»- co cm 



<t ^t r^ ro in ro 



•— ' O CM CM •— 1 LO 



ro tj- in >— i ^ 



lo ro .-< 

Cvl CT^ ^ 
CVJ i-H 


O 

ro 


in o 

CVJ i— 1 


ro 


COrnN 
oo 


co 

«3 


CVJ LO <=J- 

rt lo 


CC 


t— 1 CVJ 

oo 


ro 


r-» o q- 


CVJ 



•a- co !-» en 



i-t co -a- oo 



OO CVJ CO oo 



«3" •=)■ CO rH 



<tf- i— I CJD 



■-I CT. O O 



O oo OO lO 



Cvj oo cvl r» 



LO LO CO CTt 



CVJ «^- OO OO OO LO 



OWN 
CO OV LD 
CVJ i-M 


LO 
LO 


LO "3- 

w-i oo 




CVJ CTt CTt 

LOrtffl 


O <— < LO 
CVJ «3" 


LO 


CO *3" 
LO 


CM 


^■ns 



O P"- CM 


Ol 


r^ o 


f-. 


CO LO CM 


to 


LO LO LO 


r--. 


<3- ro 


r*-. 


ro o f^- 


•— • 



CD -C LO 


to 


+-> 


aj 


Ol L0 l 




L/l 


a; 


"O T3 -i- 


o 




i_ 


L1Z3 




C_J 


•JD 



t- CD 03 Q ■(- 



^ > O 0) (U +-> 
C C to U i- l/l 

03 03 S- C V- -r- 



03 o a> Q 
3: ,- T> _i 



I— ■<- o 



C" 


^ 


Q 


aj 


in 


F 


XT 


C 


^ 


ro 


3 






V. 


n 


OJ 


00 


u 



cvj r-^ cti 

^t CNJ tO 



co co cr> lo co 
to in <— • «3- to 

c\j cm •— « cm 



D 
< 



c\j lo r-» 



cr> o 
cm co 



O CO CM CM ' 



CM O C\J 



O CM CM 



ocnoooj t-H 



O i— t f-t 



O CXi CM C\J CM LO 



_ 

2 a: 



mm oo 



CTi U3 LO 



<— < cnj o un co 



CSJ fl LT> 



OOtjlfun 



^ H - 

r. U o 

r * "■ <*■. 

- , C£ <u 

*- E_, c 

— r* 3 



CM CM ^f 



O tO O O CM CO 



O vt st LT> CO LO 



LO cm r-^ 



HCOrOOOl r-l 



z = 



< w 



co 00 «-« 



nm «3- 



ro ro to 



o to CO o to LO 



I CM o o CO to 



"-, 1) 


•^ 


r- 


O n3 


JZ C7> 






m i — 


•i-> C 


<r> 




1) 4-» 


T; t3 




•/-, 


-O O 


xr t. 


r , 




o o 


<_> O 




f - 


C£ LO 



c c -.- 



•r- LA 



, 


CTI 




c 


n> 




S 


-• 




u 


fO 


--J 


(_> 


rf 



03 TO 

fO O 
c_j q: 



E o. 

O I— 
CT) o 



IU Er- C 



<: s: a: i/i =3 



142 



cm r-^ ro *j- 
to o r-» *3- 



cm CO ■— ' LD 

t— I CO «— I 



CM CM CM C\J C\J O 

<j\ cm lo LD <-h ro 



r-- ix> ro id 
lo cm ro r— i 

10 in ro LO 



cm co O O lo 



<-h cm <=r ld ro 



CO CT> O «— • O CO 



cnj ro o o lo 



O CD CM CM 



NHOOO CO 



o o o o 



ihcai oj<3- cr> 



kO CO O «— i CD LO 



O O^ CT. CO 



O CM LO O 



■HNfAjCO CO 



LD LD O O CO 



r- co co CO 



w 




hJ 




BO 




z 




w« 




>H 




P« 




^P 




xo 




ou 


on 


^H 


o> 


c^U 


c? 


z* 


c 

3 


«E 


-^ 


<o 


1 


w 


ra 


*g 




-*H 


— 


K Z 


> 

3 

—5 


t> 




< w 




ucrt 




12 




i-8 




Q 




< 





NOinco o 



l CT> «— ' *-• CM 



i£) H^j-r- CO 



CO rn om/1 lo 
cm c^ co in t— i 



OHCAJN 



CM O CM LD O 



i— I T-t ro 



CM •— < LO LD 



ot ro r^ t3- lo co 



HOOOlN o> 



CM i— t CM «d" LO 



' CTt CO LO CM LO 



i^^ioro CO 



«D LO CT> CO LD 



i—i ro 



i— t CM 



OCON 
CM i-H t— I 



CT^ CO CM CTi 
»D ro LO LO 



lo <d- cn ro 



■o o <— 

TO "O <D <L> 

X .-_.-_ -O 

oi > > aj 

r— TO TO t- 

<£ O O — < 



<D cu j* -^ 
r- _c <— -o 

f— LO -r- TO 
<<3> 



C .— TO 

o <u a> >, 

>, iS> -C 13 <U 

S- -r- U TO U 

qj T3 4-> +J C 

> ro ■!- TO 03 



r— U 





, — 


m 




CM 


( i 


OJ 


s 


TO 


{. 




■M 


J 


ro 


TO 


CO 


U 


CJ 



r— J- -r- 



i— -i- Q -r- 



143 



u~> C\J O LO I — CTt 



m O O O <3" 



CM CM O u"> co CM 



VOOOOOOO VO 



O O O O O O O 



^DOOOOOO «J0 m 



- 

> H 
PCS 

CrSO 



*h S 

>l — 



/: 



U (Si 

— 

Q 
< 



*3" CM O "3" CO CO 



m CM o «— t CM CO 



lTHJOCOh CO 



CM «— i i— t «3" CM O 



nrgOODN co 



r-orn^r^ocMCM «3- cm 



Nocsiinooo cr> co 



OCMOOOOCM ^f 



CSJO'-'yDHOM CM CO 



OOnroOON LD 



OOOCOr-nroo CM 



-— < o o m cm un cm co 



O CM CM CM CM «— I i-« O 



•r- O 



I r— +-» ra -r- 
i O 3 1- O 

cl an 



O ro o i/i c: c 

S- >>.c i j* o - 

CD fO TJ >> U O fO 

,C i — i- nj (C 03 J 



144 



FILING AND DISPOSITION TRENDS OF CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

1972-1982 



1.5 



M 
I 

I 

I 
I 

(i 
\ 
S 



O 
I 



s 



0.0 




Dispositions 



72 



73 



7 -l 



75 



76 



77 



-i 1 — ' r 1 1 — 

78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 



Motor vehicle cases dominate criminal filings and dispo- 
sitions in the district courts. The decrease in filings and 
dispositions shown here during 1981-82 was a direct result 
of a 12.4% decrease in motor vehicle filings and a 12% 



decrease in motor vehicle dispositions. During the 198 I - 
82 year, 61.8%, of the criminal district court filings and 
63.1%, of the dispositions were traffic cases. 



145 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 

District 2 

Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrel 1 
Washington 

District Totals 

District 3 

Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 

Pitt 

District Totals 

District 4 

Dupl in 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 

District Totals 

District 5 

New Hanover 
Pender 

District Totals 

District 6 

Bertie 
Halifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 

District Totals 

District 7 
: dgecombe 

Wi lson 

Dist r- • 
Greene 

'tla f <■ 

■ c t ro ta 1 ', 

District 9 

• 
Gra n vi 1 1 e 
Person 

■ 
District U 



lolal 
Filed 



538 
1,047 
1,880 
4,157 
1,057 
2,153 

977 

11,809 



4,683 
544 

2,928 
475 

1,176 



Waiver 



9,1 



6,072 

9,765 

650 

7,535 

24,022 



3,586 

1,752 

10,999 

8,115 

24,452 



12,964 
3,384 

16,348 



2,173 
9,423 
2,936 
3,876 

18,408 



4,475 
8,581 
6,223 

19,279 



1,283 
6,830 
9,488 

17,601 



2,594 

4,404 
2,311 
4,214 
2,4 73 

15,996 





347 




684 


1 


,327 


2 


,834 




704 


1 


,317 




678 



7,891 



2,885 
320 

1,629 
229 

;:;', 

5,885 



3,115 

5,292 

316 

4,284 

13,007 



1,554 
1,143 
4,708 
5,204 

12,609 



6,314 
1,689 

8,003 



1,496 
4,672 
1,932 
2,115 

10,215 



2,918 
5,716 
4,273 

12,907 



762 
3,522 
5,115 

9,399 



1,330 
2 , 798 
1,033 
2,340 
1,678 

9,179 



Dispositions 




Other 


Total Dispositions 


237 


584 


ill 


995 


593 


1,920 


1,179 


4,013 


372 


1,076 


'<',', 


2,272 


272 


950 



3,919 



1,,".<)4 
230 

1,345 
247 
407 

4,123 



2,546 

4,462 

645 

3,419 

11,072 



1,955 

735 

6,497 

3,096 

12,283 



7,001 
1,774 

8,775 



702 
4,831 
1,094 
1,943 

8,570 



1,473 
3,013 
2,063 

6,549 



625 
3,310 
3,937 

7,872 



1,380 
1,722 
1,257 
1,639 
1,022 

7,020 



11,810 



4,779 
550 

2,974 
476 

1,229 

10,008 



5,661 

9,754 

961 

7,703 

24,079 



3,509 

1,878 

11,205 

8,300 

24,892 



13,315 
3,463 

16,778 



2,198 
9,503 
3,026 
4,058 

18,785 



4,391 
8,729 
6,336 

19,456 



1,387 
6,832 
9,052 

17,271 



2,710 
4,520 
2,290 
3,979 
2,700 

16,199 



I4f, 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 198! — June 30, 1982 

^ Dispositions 

Total 

Filed Waiver Other Total Dispositions 



District 10 

22,300 21,406 43,706 

3.079 2,470 5,549 
3,705 3,686 7,391 
1,958 1,319 3,277 

8,742 7,475 16,217 

17,518 14,388 31,906 

1,490 837 2,327 

19,008 15,225 34,233 

2,378 2,516 4,894 

2,520 1,888 4,408 

3,322 3,880 7,202 

8,220 8,284 16,504 

7,576 6,925 14,501 

7,464 5,348 12,812 

1,951 1,370 3,321 

4,667 4,343 9,010 

6,618 5,713 12,331 

6,055 6,938 12,993 

2,025 1,481 3,506 

8.080 8,419 16,499 

1,238 764 2,002 

5,198 3,465 8,663 

6,436 4,229 10,665 

1,651 1,362 3,013 

4,366 2,695 7,061 

6,017 4,057 10,074 

16,543 14,255 30,798 

7,486 5,065 12,551 

24,029 19,320 43,349 

8,090 4,477 12,567 

7,502 4,349 11,851 

15,592 8,826 24,418 

Montgomery 4,333 2,854 1,487 4,341 

Randolph 7,896 5,195 2,938 8,133 

District Totals 12,229 8,049 4,425 12,474 



147 



Wake 


44,559 


District 11 




Harnett 


5,609 


Johnston 


7,282 


Lee 


3,166 


District Totals 


16,057 


District 12 




Cumberland 


30,875 


Hoke 


2,259 


District Totals 


33,134 


District 13 




Bladen 


4,134 


Brunswick 


4,534 


Columbus 


6,548 


District Totals 


15,216 


District 14 




Durham 


14,213 


District 15A 




Alamance 


12,700 


District 15B 




Chatham 


3,362 


Orange 


8,722 


District Totals 


12,084 


District 16 




Robeson 


12,287 


Scotland 


3,490 


District Totals 


15,777 


District 17A 




Caswel 1 


1,903 


Rockingham 


8,695 


District Totals 


10,598 


District 17A 




Stokes 


3,036 


Surry 


7,456 


District Totals 


10,492 


District 18 




Guilford 


33,425 


High Point 


13,051 


District Totals 


46,476 


District 19A 




Cabarrus 


12,658 


Rowan 


11,077 


District Totals 


23,735 


District 19B 





MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 





rotal 




Hied 


District 20 




Anson 


3,300 


Moore 


6,210 


Richmond 


2,749 


Stanly 


5,112 


Union 


4,777 


District Totals 


22,148 


District 21 





Dispositions 



Forsyth 
District 22 



District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 



B jncombe 



District 29 



33, £ 



Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 


1,664 

12,736 

2,702 

9,592 


District Totals 


26,694 


District 23 




Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 


659 
2,041 
5,588 
3,321 


District Totals 


11,609 


District 24 




Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


1,640 
1,008 
787 
3,497 
1,021 


District Totals 


7,953 


District 25 




Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 


10,437 

5,450 

10,474 



26,361 



48,951 



15,618 



Cleveland 


6,416 


Lincoln 


3,651 


- ict Total s 


10,067 


District 28 





16,558 



Henderson 


6,978 


McDowell 


3,930 


Polk 


1,615 


Rutherford 


4,016 


1 ransyl vania 


1,982 




18,521 



Waiver 



2,009 
2,921 
1,506 

2,725 
11,963 



19,004 



736 
7,956 
2,019 
6,749 

17,460 



431 
1,191 
3,256 
2,132 

7,010 



;;44 
640 
437 
1,836 
505 

4,262 



6,638 
2,716 
5,693 

15,047 



27,516 



5,2 76 



3,702 
1,722 

5,424 



10,364 



4,665 
2,828 
1,005 
2,548 
1,215 

12,261 



Other 



1,326 
2,995 
1,238 
2,233 
1,994 

9,786 



14,996 



927 
5,271 
1,005 
3,080 

10,283 



/MO 

673 

2,431 

1,211 

4,595 



1,085 
444 
332 

1,749 
472 

4,082 



3,418 
2,920 
4,772 

11,110 



27,685 



7,409 



2,920 
1,851 

4,771 



6,117 



2,301 
1,362 

649 
1,339 

660 

6,311 



Total Dispositions 



3,335 
5,916 
2,744 
5,035 
4,719 

21,749 



34,000 



1,663 

13,227 

3,024 

9,829 

27,743 



711 

1,864 
5,687 
3,343 

11,605 



1,929 
1,084 

769 
3,585 

977 

8,344 



10,056 

5,636 

10,465 

26,157 



55,201 



15,685 



6,622 
3,573 

10,195 



16,481 



6,966 
4,190 
1,654 
3,887 
1,875 

18,572 



148 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 







Total 




30 


Filed 


District 




Cherokee 




2,242 


Clay 




469 


Graham 




286 


Haywood 




5,085 


Jackson 
Macon 




2,057 
2,722 


Swain 




1,067 


District 


Totals 


13,928 


State Tot 


als 


677,247 



Waiver 



1,345 

258 

242 

3,181 

1,073 

1,809 

573 

8,481 
384,294 



Dispositions 




Other 


Total Dispositions 


865 


2,210 


20 3 


461 


162 


404 


1,773 


4,954 


972 


2,045 


98 3 


2,792 


584 


1,157 


5,542 


14,023 


302,522 


686,816 



149 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 





Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/81 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/82 


District 1 














Camden 


8 


IV 


160 


156 


97.5 


4 


Chowan 


58 


837 


895 


849 


94.8 


46 


Curri tuck 


48 


560 


608 


546 


89.8 


62 


Dare 


104 


1,290 


1,394 


1,189 


85.2 


205 


Gates 


28 


215 


243 


239 


98.3 


4 


Pasquotank 


124 


1,821 


1,945 


1,815 


93.3 


130 


Perquimans 


33 


332 


365 


353 


96.7 


12 


District Totals 


4(13 


5,207 


5,610 


5,147 


91.7 


463 


District 2 














Beaufort 


l'V 


2,666 


2,858 


2,756 


96.4 


102 


Hyde 


12 


389 


401 


382 


95.2 


19 


Martin 


128 


1,650 


1,778 


1,639 


92.1 


1 39 


Tyrrel 1 


29 


275 


304 


269 


88.4 


35 


Washington 


17 


942 


959 


9 V 


97.1 


27 


District Totals 


378 


5,922 


6,300 


5,978 


94.8 


322 


District 3 














Carteret 


596 


4,444 


5,040 


4,057 


80.4 


983 


Craven 


'■7 3 


5,087 


5,660 


5,062 


89.4 


598 


Pamlico 


■If-. 


469 


515 


452 


87.7 


63 


Pitt 


752 


7,992 


8,744 


7,997 


91.4 


747 


District Totals 


1,967 


17,992 


19,959 


17,568 


88.0 


2,391 


District 4 














Dupl in 


I'M 


2,424 


2,615 


2,044 


78.1 


57] 


Jones 


28 


518 


546 


460 


84.2 


86 


Onslow 


916 


8,416 


9,332 


8,717 


93.4 


615 


Sampson 


4 IS 


3,311 


3,746 


3,377 


90.1 


369 


District Totals 


1,570 


14,669 


16,239 


14,598 


89.8 


1,641 


District 5 














New Hanover 


1,257 


11,704 


12,961 


11,919 


91.9 


1,042 


Pender 


150 


1,120 


1,270 


1,081 


85.1 


189 


District Totals 


1,407 


12,824 


14,231 


13,000 


91.3 


1,231 


District 6 














Bertie 


54 


833 


887 


819 


92.3 


68 


Hal i fa/ 


366 


4,064 


4,430 


4,033 


91.0 


397 


Hertford 


IV) 


1,881 


2,031 


1,818 


89.5 


213 


Northampton 


67 


1,100 


1,167 


997 


85.4 


170 


District Totals 


637 


7,878 


8,515 


7,667 


90.0 


848 


District 7 














Edgecombe 


',4') 


4,788 


5,328 


4,706 


88.3 


622 


Nash 


779 


5,891 


6,670 


5,767 


86.4 


903 


Wilson 


770 


5,154 


5,924 


4,951 


83.5 


973 



District Totals 



2,089 



15,833 



17,922 



15,424 



i.O 



2,498 



:t 8 





97 


796 


893 


847 


94.8 


46 


Lenoir 


594 


5,460 


6,054 


5,497 


90.7 


557 


Wayne 


846 


6,613 


7,459 


6,490 


87.0 


969 


District Totals 


1,537 


12,869 


14,406 


12,834 


89.0 


1,572 


istr ict 9 


238 


1,689 


1,927 


1,706 


88.5 


221 


Granville 


1/4 


2,004 


2,178 


2,024 


92.9 


154 


Vr'.on 


187 


1,769 


1,956 


1,722 


88.0 


234 




226 


2,957 


3,183 


2,847 


89.4 


336 


larrei 


161 


674 


835 


753 


90.1 


82 



< i c t Totals 



986 



9,093 



10,079 



9,052 



8,9 :8 



1,027 



ISO 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/81 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/82 

District 10 



Wake 


4,209 


28,824 


33,033 


27,016 


81.7 


6,017 


District 11 














Harnett 


346 


3,983 


4,329 


3,601 


83.1 


728 


Johnston 


785 


4,781 


5,566 


4,570 


82.1 


9% 


[ IT 


391 


4,283 


4,674 


4,336 


92.7 


338 


District Totals 


1,522 


13,047 


14,569 


12,507 


85.8 


2,062 


District 12 














Cumberland 


3,514 


24,604 


28,118 


24,110 


85.7 


4,008 


Hoke 


148 


1,690 


1,838 


1,631 


88.7 


207 


District Totals 


3,662 


26,294 


29,956 


25,741 


85.9 


4,215 


District 13 














Bladen 


351 


2,785 


3,136 


2,713 


86.5 


423 


Brunswick 


250 


2,437 


2,687 


2,217 


82.5 


470 


Columbus 


422 


4,271 


4,693 


4,172 


88.8 


521 


District Totals 


1,023 


9,493 


10,516 


9,102 


86.5 


1,414 


District 14 














Durham 


2,350 


13,753 


16,103 


12,984 


80.6 


3,119 


District 15A 














Alamance 


699 


6,475 


7,174 


6,273 


87.4 


901 


District 15B 














Chatham 


130 


1,262 


1,392 


1,268 


91.0 


124 


Orange 


447 


4,469 


4,916 


4,073 


82.8 


843 


District Totals 


577 


5,731 


6,308 


5,341 


84.6 


967 


District 16 














Robeson 


1,183 


9,342 


10,525 


9,335 


88.6 


1,190 


Scotland 


392 


3,597 


3,989 


3,549 


88.9 


440 


District Totals 


1,575 


12,939 


14,514 


12,884 


88.7 


1,630 


District 17A 














Caswell 


96 


999 


1,095 


1,032 


94.2 


63 


Rockingham 


628 


5,673 


6,301 


5,520 


87.6 


781 


District Totals 


724 


6,672 


7,396 


6,552 


88.5 


844 


District 17B 














Stokes 


95 


9 38 


1,033 


939 


90.9 


94 


Surry 


457 


3,245 


3,702 


3,290 


88.8 


412 


District Totals 


552 


4,183 


4,735 


4,229 


89.3 


506 


District 18 














Guil ford 


5,367 


26,666 


32,033 


23,810 


74.3 


8,223 


District 19A 














Cabarrus 


508 


4,846 


5,354 


4,690 


87.5 


564 


Rowan 


753 


3,864 


4,617 


3,702 


80.1 


915 


District Totals 


1,261 


8,710 


9,971 


8,392 


84.1 


1,579 


District 19B 















Montgomery 269 2,337 2,606 2,243 86.0 363 

Randolph 381 4,242 4,623 4,037 87.3 586 

District Totals 650 6,579 7,229 6,280 86.8 949 



151 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 







July 1, 


1981 


— June 


30, 


1982 










Pending 






Total 








% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/81 


Filed 




Caseload 


i 




Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/82 


District 20 




















Anson 


162 


1,601 




1,763 






1,597 


90.5 


Ibf, 


Moore 


36 ' 


3,952 




4,319 






3,911 


90.5 


408 


Richmond 


382 


3,385 




3,767 






3,231 


85.7 


536 


Stanly 


402 


2,347 




2,749 






2,352 


85.5 


397 


Union 


34 b 


4,111 




4,457 






4,106 


92.1 


351 


District Totals 


1,659 


15,396 




17,055 






15,197 


89.1 


1,858 



District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 

District Totals 
District 23 



Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

District Totals 



District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 

District Totals 

District 23 
Buncombe 

District 29 
Henderson 

- 

rford 
1 1 /an i a 

'.\-,\( ict Totals 



3,270 



174 

1 52 

65 

671 

1,642 



6 54 



1,074 



4,';/ 
223 
113 
377 
122 

1,322 



16,081 



1,327 

6,865 

898 

6,098 

15,188 



19,351 



1,501 

7,597 

963 

6,769 

16,830 



6,273 



12,131 



3,342 

1,327 

544 

i , !09 
919 

9,441 



6,907 



13,205 



3,829 
1,550 
657 
3,686 
1,041 

10,763 



15,221 



1,290 

6,680 

852 

5,841 

14,663 



6,360 



12,094 



3,294 
1,336 

585 
3,179 

899 

9,293 



78.6 



85.9 
87.9 
88.4 
86.2 

87.1 



92.0 



91.5 



86.0 
86.1 
89.0 
86.2 
86.3 

86.3 



4,130 



211 
917 

111 
928 

2,167 



Alleghany 


16 


412 


428 


194 


92.0 


34 


Ashe 


53 


820 


873 


785 


89.9 


88 


Wilkes 


310 


3,281 


3,591 


3,250 


90.5 


34 1 


Yadkin 


103 


1,217 


1,320 


1,217 


92.1 


103 


District Totals 


48;? 


5,730 


6,212 


5,646 


90.8 


566 


District 24 














Avery 


269 


4/4 


743 


93 


12.5 


650 


Madison 


86 


19] 


Ml 


595 


82.8 


82 


Mitchell 


10 3 


359 


462 


298 


64.5 


164 


Watauga 


225 


8M0 


1,105 


82 3 


74.4 


282 


Yancey 


92 


4// 


569 


437 


76.8 


132 


District Totals 


7 75 


2,581 


3,356 


2,046 


60.9 


1,310 


District 25 















288 


3,663 


3,951 


3,565 


90.2 


SHh 


597 


4,133 


4,730 


3,723 


78.7 


1,007 


592 


6,364 


6,956 


6,311 


90.7 


645 


1,477 


14,160 


15,637 


13,599 


86.9 


2,038 


6,061 


29,946 


36,007 


26,750 


74.2 


9,257 


1,559 


13,528 


15,087 


12,588 


83.4 


2,499 


400 


4,034 


4,434 


4,100 


92.4 


134 


234 


2,239 


2,473 


2,260 


91.3 


213 



',4/ 



1,111 



5 55 

214 

72 

507 

14? 

1,470 



52 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 



District 30 



Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/81 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/82 



Cherokee 114 619 733 550 75.0 183 

Clay 4 213 217 196 90.3 21 

Graham 82 313 395 331 83.7 64 

Haywood 677 2,527 3,204 2,399 74.8 805 

Jackson 216 893 1,109 776 69.9 333 

Macon 378 965 1,343 927 69.0 416 

Swain 77 538 615 500 81.3 115 

District Totals 1,548 6,068 7,616 5,679 74.5 1,937 

State Totals 56,648 418,176 474,824 401,515 84.5 73,309 



53 



METHODS OF DISPOSITION OF DISTRICT COURT CRIMINAL 
NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

1981-1982 



WAIVFRS 



MSMISSAI s 




GUM IY PI FA 



Guilty picas continue to represent the largest method of 
disposition ol non-motor vehicle cases in the district 
courts. I he waivers depicted here are worthless check 



cases; dismissals include speedy trial and prosecutor dis- 
missals (both with and without leave). 



54 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 





Wal 


ver 


Guilt) 


Plea 


Not Guilty Plea 


Prelim. 


Dismissal 


Speedy 
Trial 






Total 


Magis- 






Magis- 




Magis- 


% Disposed 


Disposed 


trate 


Clerk 


Judge 


trate 


Judge 


trate 


Hearing 


by D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


By Waiver 


166 








29 


16 


25 





2 ! 


22 





41 


.0 


849 


59 


25 


275 


44 


112 





66 


101 





147 


9.8 


546 


15 


13 


12] 


88 


131 





57 


103 





18 


5.1 


1,189 


39 


108 


376 


151 


141 





82 


218 





74 


12.3 


239 


20 


9 


55 


25 


46 





39 


22 





2 3 


12.1 


1,815 


50 


103 


659 


83 


471 


') 


192 


184 


1 


72 


8.4 


353 


10 





87 


24 


59 


1) 


60 


55 





58 


2.8 



5,147 



193 



258 



1,602 



4 31 



1,005 



'.-I') 



705 



4 33 



8.7 



District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 

District Totals 

District 3 

Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 

District Totals 



2,756 


523 


71 


92 4 


141 


44,:' 





2 14 


169 


382 


4 


18 


74 


75 


83 


1 


26 


39 


1,639 


164 


n 


652 


37 


337 


1 


154 


96 


269 


14 


12 


63 


7 


56 


2 


27 


25 


932 


118 


80 


218 


62 


217 





131 


65 



5,978 



823 



212 



1,931 



!22 



1,135 



17,568 2,258 1,387 5,539 1,149 



1,494 



6 72 



394 



4,057 


317 


205 


1,185 


6 75 


260 





30 7 


1,056 


5,062 


756 


183 


1,582 


231 


383 


1 


220 


1,325 


452 


30 


20 


155 


56 


26 





36 


110 


7,997 


1,255 


9/4 


2,617 


187 


825 





567 


1,243 



1,126 3,734 



252 
62 

165 
63 
41 

583 



880 



21.5 
5.7 

11.8 
9.6 

21.2 

17.3 






156 


10.4 


(1 


381 


18.5 


11 


19 


11.0 





124 


27.9 



20.7 



District 4 

Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 

District Totals 



2,044 


2 12 


240 


642 





44 


f) 


38 


25 7 


460 


28 


20 


168 


45 


28 





19 


128 


8,717 


1,059 


491 


3,272 


297 


549 





45 


1,468 


3,377 


600 


319 


1,303 


10 


111 


2 





455 



14,598 1,919 1,070 



5,385 



362 



7 !2 



102 2,308 






591 


23.0 





24 


10.4 





1,536 


17.7 





577 


27.2 



2,728 20.4 



District 5 

New Hanover 
Pender 

District Totals 

District 6 

Bertie 
Hal ifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 

District Totals 

District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 

District Totals 

District 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 

District Totals 



1,919 


1,318 


494 


4,338 


177 


1,763 


1 


1,347 


2,088 


1,081 


6 


16 


368 


1 90 


120 


3 


152 


181 


3,000 


1,324 


510 


4,706 


367 


1,883 


4 


1,499 


2,269 


819 


25 


5 7 


214 


55 


219 


1 


72 


118 


4,033 


149 


99 


1,169 


3 15 


591 


1 


301 


'U)4 


1,818 


307 


92 


467 


61 


226 


5 


83 


304 


997 


53 


73 


! 99 


190 


193 


1 


61 


148 



7,667 



12,834 



7(4 



15,424 2,361 



921 



321 2,049 



641 1,229 



993 5,456 



615 



1,712 



766 



3,f 



590 



8 19 



517 1,474 



4,706 


627 


320 


1,658 


292 


6/0 





146 


891 


5,767 


1,206 


438 


1,795 


121 


563 





142 


1,002 


4,951 


528 


2 36 


2,003 


202 


579 





375 


924 



863 2,817 



847 


86 


1 


265 


4 1 


94 





53 


238 


5,497 


194 





1,962 


46 3 


208 





258 


1,677 


6,490 


44 1 


764 


1,657 


96 


537 





1 12 


2,009 



443 3,924 



393 
45 

4 18 



694 



60 7 



1,468 



15.2 
2.0 

14.1 






58 


10.0 





284 


11.1 





27 3 


21.9 





79 


12.6 



13.7 






202 


20.1 





300 


28.5 





106 


15.4 



21.7 






69 


10.2 





64 6 


7.1 





854 


18.5 



13.1 



155 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1981 —June 30, 1982 



District 9 

Frankl in 
Granvil le 
Person 
Vance 
Warren 

District Totals 

District 10 
Wake 

District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 
District 12 



Bladen 
Brunswick 
Col umbus 

District Totals 
District 14 



Durham 




District 


15A 


Alamance 




District 


15B 



Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 
District 16 



Guilford 





w 


aiver 


Guilty 


Plea 


Not Guilty Plea 






Speedy 




























Total 


Magis- 






Magis- 




Magis- 


Prelim. 


Dismissal 


Trial 




% Disposed 
By Waiver 


Disposed 


trate 


Clerk 


Judge 


trate 


Judge 


trate 


Hearing 


by D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


1,706 


357 


71 


463 


50 


J22 





120 


251 


1) 


72 


25 


2,024 


262 


131 


653 


112 


3 39 


1 


164 


293 


n 


69 


19.4 


1,722 


152 


24 


5 74 


90 


332 





lie 


297 





143 


10.2 


: . 84 7 


456 


2 3 3 


798 


21 


4 34 





118 


460 





32 7 


24.2 


753 


111 


26 


185 


95 


111 





15 


169 





21 


18.1 



9,052 1,338 



485 



2,673 



568 



27,016 



275 5,821 



5,753 1,575 



3,601 426 
4,570 529 
4,336 1,121 



390 
628 

'■10 



12,507 2,076 1,1( 



1,142 
1,343 
1,463 

3,948 



122 

135 

!9 

296 



1,538 



1,965 



354 
596 

44 3 

1,393 



547 1,470 



2,286 5,378 



175 
i04 
183 



548 
648 

692 



662 1,788 



2,713 
2,217 
4,172 

9,102 



12,984 



6,273 



1,268 
4,073 

5,341 



16 3 
193 
384 



267 

32 

845 



740 1,144 



890 

738 

1,329 

2,966 



211 

252 

91 

556 



827 1,112 5,693 



208 
217 
361 

786 



7 14 



114 
1 32 
169 



753 
609 
82 1 



610 



72 

6 34 

706 



61 



13 
102 



2,496 218 937 



453 161 103 

1,336 166 292 



415 2,183 



657 2,980 



596 1,250 



1,789 327 



395 



I 16 
2/2 

408 



190 
1,268 

1,458 



23,810 



6 32 



96 1 



44 
170 



9i»0 



205 



64 
91 

165 



20.1 



22.5 






444 


22.6 





387 


25.3 





405 


27.9 



1,236 25.4 



Cumberland 


24,110 


253 


4,423 


5,432 


245 


1,325 





38 


6,058 





6,336 


19.3 


Hoke 


1,631 


58 


298 


545 


17 


246 





45 


307 





115 


21.8 


District Totals 


25,741 


311 


4,721 


5,977 


262 


1,571 





8 3 


6,365 





6,451 


19.5 


District 13 



























15.8 
10.1 
29.4 



311 20.6 



14.9 



9.1 



12.6 
15.8 

15.1 



Robeson 
Scotland 


9,335 
3,549 


1,438 
378 


12 3 
4 5 


4,095 
1,505 


84 
156 


889 
WO 






823 

181 


52 3 
2/5 


2 



1,358 
629 


16.7 
11.9 


District Totals 


12,884 


1,816 


168 


5,600 


240 


1,269 





1,004 


798 


2 


1,987 


15.3 


District 17A 


























Caswell 
Rockingham 


1,032 
5,520 


46 
618 


6 
96 


275 
1,668 


70 

28 3 


283 

94/ 


1 



75 

222 


199 
759 






77 
927 


5.0 
12.9 


District Totals 


6,552 


664 


102 


1,943 


36 3 


1,230 


1 


297 


958 





1,004 


11.6 


District 17B 


























Stokes 
Surry 


939 
3,290 


71 

298 


44 
5 


14/ 

833 


55 

15/ 


188 
32/ 






102 
62/ 


205 
684 






127 

359 


12.2 
9.2 


District Totals 


4,229 


369 


4 9 


980 


212 


516 





729 


8,8.9 





4 86 


9.8 


District 18 



























36 7 



17 1 



9,732 1,045 2,978 



806 6,404 



1 1,764 



4.5 



156 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 



District 19A 

Cabarrus 
Rowan 

District Totals 

District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randolph 

District Totals 





Wai 


>er 


Guilty Plea 


Not Guilty Plea 

Magis- 
Judge trate 


Prelim. 
Hearing 




Total 
Disposed 


Magis- 
trate 


Clerk 


Judge 


Magis- 
trate 


Dismiss 
by D.A 


4,690 
3,702 


409 

160 


233 

121 


1,538 
1,211 


548 
157 


900 

mi 


l 

l 


490 
457 


638 
558 



8,392 



2,243 
4,037 



669 



307 
801 



354 2,749 



449 



1,797 



Speedy 
Trial % Disposed 

Dismissal Other By Waiver 



947 1,196 






413 


477 


281 


U 


170 


564 





1,336 


74 


594 


1) 


416 


823 



6,280 1,108 



1,749 



661 



786 



586 1,387 



1 38 
140 

2 79 



31 
83 

114 



13.6 
7.5 

10.9 



13.6 
19.8 

17.6 



District 20 

Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 

District Totals 

District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 

District Totals 

District 23 

Al leghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 

District Totals 

District 24 

Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 

District Totals 
District 25 



Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 

District Totals 



1,597 


175 


4 


479 


78 


368 





L46 


3 3/ 


3,911 


591 


325 


989 


48 


412 





444 


636 


3,231 


315 


72 


a?2 


/6 


65 7 


1 


559 


6 I i 


2,352 


371 


33 


863 


150 


88 





283 


424 


4,106 


714 


16 


1,074 


68 


898 





686 


641 



15,197 2,166 



2,046 



459 



4,227 



420 2,407 



14,663 1,035 



162 



234 4,366 



910 



1,912 



4 1 



407 



140 



310 



1 2,018 2,671 



5,221 


5 


2,120 


4,497 


56 


3,453 





1,305 


2,401 


1,290 


52 


23 


280 


207 


159 


2 


123 


395 


6,680 


351 


185 


1,870 


440 


928 





162 


1,763 


852 


41 


21 


228 





14 3 





67 


223 


5,841 


591 


5 


1,988 


263 


682 





462 


1,711 



21 



814 4,092 



394 


53 


10 


119 


22 


46 





28 


96 


785 


39 


76 


213 


38 


181 





84 


23 


3,250 


28? 


103 


947 


74 


8 18 





250 


468 


1,217 


103 


27 


344 


73 


205 





108 


169 


5,646 


468 


216 


1,623 


207 


1,250 





4 70 


756 


93 


75 


1 


2 


1 


1 


2 


i 


1 


395 


4 


1 


54 


31 


67 


? 


5 


156 


298 


16 


5 


80 


5 


5 3 





21 


74 


82 3 


68 


34 


175 


8 3 


99 


17 


31 


2 36 


4 37 


15 





96 


88 


90 





39 


99 



97 



565 



3,565 


2 77 


184 


977 


121 


283 





418 


1,032 


3,723 


253 





1,107 


267 


245 





137 


1,297 


6,311 


584 


150 


2,131 


223 


656 





584 


1,434 


13,599 


1,114 


334 


4,215 


611 


1,084 





1,079 


3,763 


26,750 


1,485 


3 


7,151 


3,258 


2,392 





2,309 


8,895 


12,588 


908 





4,000 


468 


1,395 





137 


3,603 


4,100 


378, 


13 


1,424 


104 


266 





394 


1,123 


2,260 


177 


100 


689 


177 


250 





160 


508 


6,360 


555 


113 


2,113 


281 


616 





554 


1,631 






26 


11.2 





466 


23.4 





96 


11.9 





140 


17.1 





109 


17.7 



837 



1,384 



49 
980 
129 
139 



1 1,297 



20 
I '(0 
308 
188 

656 



303 



1,257 



2,087 



398 
199 

597 



17.2 



13.9 



5.8 

8.0 

7.2 

10.2 

8.6 



15.9 
13.5 
11.8 
10.6 

12.1 






9 


81.7 





76 


1.2 





44 


7.0 





156 


10.4 





18 


3.4 



9 9 






273 


12.9 


1 


416 


6.7 





709 


11.6 



1 1,398 10.6 



5.5 



7.2 



9.5 
12.2 

10.5 



57 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 



District 28 



Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 

District Totals 
State Totals 



Waiver 



Guilty Plea 



Not Guilty Plea 



Speedy 



Total Magis- Magis- Magis- Prelim. Dismissal Trial % Disposed 

Disposed trate Clerk Judge trate Judge trate Hearing by D.A. Dismissal Other By Waiver 



Buncombe 


12,094 


1,4 34 


595 


5,301 


93 


hti', 


1 


1,214 


590 





2,201 


16.7 


District 29 


























Henderson 
Mc Dowel 1 
Polk 

Rutherford 
Transylvania 


3,294 
1,336 

585 
3,179 

899 




127 

9 

1 1 ; 

48 


'■) 

9 

Id 



23 


962 
384 

170 

1,026 

288 


514 

214 

4 

4f,ll 

163 


lit. 
160 

2 5 
437 

46 


(i 




II 


258 

161 

34 

217 
89 


762 
230 
145 

518 
198 









673 

51 

188 

544 

39 


.2 

10.1 

3.2 

5.5 

8.4 


District Totals 


9,293 


361 


56 


2,830 


1,355 


784 


II 


759 


1,853 





1,295 


4.4 


District 30 



























550 


5 


32 


1 w 


8 


20 


1 


25 


248 


196 


3 


10 


34 


28 


19 





27 


35 


331 


1 


5 


4'i 


1 32 


17 





18 


// 


2,399 


192 


25 


783 


78 


149 


1 


256 


88 1 


776 


7 


2 7 


162 


44 


20 


II 


1 


248 


92 7 


39 


5 


199 


157 


40 





/l 


264 


500 


42 


6 


120 


91 


52 





25 


123 



5,679 289 110 1,485 538 317 
401,515 32,181 25,738 129,815 19,297 44,407 



2 423 1,878 
52 26,843 84,827 



1) 


73 


6.7 


(1 


40 


6.6 





32 


1.8 


II 


32 


q.o 





267 


4.3 





152 


4.7 





41 


9.6 





637 


7.0 


8 


38,347 


14.4 



;-; 



O ^O ^t ®^DUD Os! 



r-t «— I O O <T> 



UlHiD^ VO 



Onroo <3" 



H^morrfiin 



CO 

H 

as 
P 
o 
u 

h« 

*■* i-« 

05 S 

H - 

cc « 

w 3 
Kg 

Z-g 

r—» 3 

c/> 
W "° 
en ? 



■< o. 

U - 



3S 
W 
> 

o s 



BID 
< 



£ 00 

Q * 



— ix> r^. <\j ih m (D r- * 00 



o -, 



.2 «• 
-a da 



— c 



o a. 
Q 



2 *— »? 



s - 

SI 

ox — 

.5 - 



^Ninconocj 
ro en < — i in • — i CO CO 

»-< n in o c\j n fo 



o o o o o o o 

HinNlOHN^ 



O^OOJNODO (NJ 



io en vo CT> cr» uo ro r^ 

in ^ tt co co r- 1 lo <a- 

ih oo in r-i cm CO ro .— i 



<— < «— t in 



O'-'omotH .— i 



O cm o ai o oj o ro 



i ro »o o ** o 



<t ro ud <t ro 



r>» in «3" in cr> h 

m ro m c\i co lo 



co o in o 
i— i en co ro 



en *a- lo ^r 

CNjOrH^f 

^3- ro *d- o 



ro co co CO 

enm ro m 

r-i o in 



co cm r-» en 
r-- co *d- «o 
r--- ro ro in 



ro ^o 
in co 
in en 



H NC\J W 



in o uo o «-h <— < 



m H^-OO o 



coo^cn t— i 



inu)rs o co 



rj f-H f— 



O CT< O ro <\J 
lo r^- O cm lo 
r-» ro <x> 0~> LO 



O LO 


O 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


O 


o 


O 


o 


O 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


CO 


o 


r^ t— i 


o 


OJ 


IT, 


CO 


CD 


00 


' 1 


o 

CM 


CD 


CO 


«3 

CO 


CM O 
CM CO 


ro 

CM 


LO 


CO 


■o 


o 


CM 


>3 


o 


IO 


oi oi 


m 


,_, 


CO 


CM 


Ol 


CO 


o 


LT) 


LO 


CO 


LO 


LT) 


CO 


r-- 


C 1 


CD, 


CO 


LD 


ro 


CT. 


CO 


o 


CM o 
«3- oo 


CD 


CM 


r- 


o 

CO 


ro 


CM 


LO 

CM 


CM 

CO 


LO 

ro 


o 

CO 


LD 

ro 


CO 

ro 


o 

<* 


ro 


CO 
CO 


CO 


ro 
ro 


o 

CM 


CO 

CO 


CM 


CO 
CM 


CJ. 
CM 


LO CM 
LO CO 

r-~ ro 


Ol 

m 

LO 


Ol 

IX) 
CM 


C J 
ro 
Ol 


CO 
Oi 


r~~ cm 

LO IX) 

o o 


CM 
IX) 

>3 


CD 
CD 


CO 
■xi 
LT1 


"1 
-1 

o 


O 

IX) 

't 


r - 


r~. 
ro 


CO 

CD 

LO 


CD 
Ol 


CO 

o 


O 

o 
o 


Ol 
CO 


CO 

O 


CO 
o > 


Ol 
Ol 


■ o 

IO 



*3- .-I l-~ 



OrlMO T 
HHOlJ LT) 



z 

© 
z 






« as 



fi 

"3 

e 



«— I LT> «3" ro CM LT) <— I 



HCONif 



HNQiCOrH LO 
LO ^-1 LO •— I CM CO 



nm ^t ^ 


LO 


en <— * «3- o 


'.J- 


in r-- 


CNJ CO i— 1 CTt 


l._n 


CA MUD<t 


r H 


CO CO 



HHHfO lO 



OCOM^ 


Lf) 


mNin io 


,-H 


r^ co 


Cj 


NiniflH 


en 


in <o ro en 


*t 


uo in cj. r^. 


OJ 


en ud 


'.i.":> 


ID NOCO 


CO 


in co ^r 


^» 


CO *3" CO 


o 


«X) 


r^ 


CO •-* 


U". 



So 

_ 

c 

CO 

w 

< 



s < 



o o o o o o o 



o in cm n co c\j cti en 



o o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


O CO 


o 


o 


O 


o 


O 


o o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


O 


CD O 


o 


Lf) 


cti in 

co -— l 


CO 


n 

CO 


cn 


^f- 


^ CO 


o 

LO 


r^- 


^J" 


CO 


CO 
CM 


co ro 

CO CO 


CM 




ro 


ro 


- 


Ol CM 
CM LO 


r- . 


LO 

ro 


f-t ^j- 


.h 


CO 


en 


LO 


O en 


a-- 


r^ 


O 


Cr. 


CO 


r-» cti 


CO 


Ol 


r^» 


CO 


o 


O -3- 


■^r 


CD 


»— i in 

i— • CO 


r^. 


^3- 


LD 


CO 


CO KJD 
CO CD 


.-]■ 
o 


in 

CM 


CO 

CM 


LO 


LO 


in co 
<3- in 


^ 


CO 


ro 


CO 


LO 


u"> co 


r^ 


ro 

co 


co en 
O ^ 


CTi 
CO 


in 

CO 


CM 


CM 
CM 
CO 


CO CO 

co en 
en in 


ro 


r 


Ol 
CO 




LO 

CO 


in en 

.— ■ to 

in ro 




CM 

o 




ro 

CO 


CO 
LO 


r~^ ro 

Ol t-l 
CO CM 


o 


Ci 1 

• ? 

CO 



CO "T3 •■— l/> 


3 


3 


"O 5 5- CD O) 


rr 


cr 


E O S- *- -M 


i/, 


u 


(U JZ 3 ftj fl 




aj 


UUUQO 


Q. 


a. 



(O "D S- l, (fl 
CU >^ T3 >^ <T3 



CD O 

i- c o 

a; CD -r- 

+->>.— +J 

LroE+J 
ro S- rO -r- 
l_> O O- Q_ 



•i— </) 



•r- (/) O i/l 
i — CD " — CL 
CX. C CO E 
3 O C n3 
Q ■ - D O LO 



3 C 

CD CD 





>- 


L. 


r 


n; 


OL 


oi 


in 




■+- 


i*- 


r 










t_ 




l. 


X 


HI 


■D 


■Ii 


o 


ni 


J_ 


_L 


^ 



59 



co en c$ i^ 



«— < «— < CM LO 



CO O CM 

«=f CM 

«— • CNJ 



co <— i en co 

CO CT) LO CO 



H 
OS 

p 

C 
U 

U 

5 






W 3 



Z = 



3 

Q 

4j 



< 

u 

w 

u 



> 

OS -u 

o s 



or 



> 

— s 



O J. 

£ - 



OMfv 
O LO CO 
c\j c\j co 



no i-h o 
O co lo 
r^ r-* r-«. 



lo cm CO 
LO LO LO 



LO f>. r-H «^- 

O "JO LO CM 

r-- r^ <j\ k? 

Kt lo ^j- LO 



«3- en co r-. 

•— I CM 



O •— ' cm co 
CM CM LO 



« — I P-» i — • Cn 

CO CO CO «tf- 

r». cm »-h 



r^ lo i— i 
*a- «a- I s -* 
r-. en lo 



^ m ct> en 



r^. r-». o 
•cj- cn CT) 
co *a- ^a- 



t-h <a- o lo 



lo co en cn en 

*-• CM Cn CO t— " 

lo r-. «^- ^j- lo 



o o o o o 

<^J- ^f LO LO LO 



H^-OJNO CO 



lo ^f cm r-* en 

O CM CM ^ LO 

NQN CON 



i— < CM i— i CM 



CM CO CO LO LO CO 

r^- «— i i— i i-h 



LO LO i— I LO CO LO 
.-I .-H «3" 



lo lo en 


LO 


CO CO 


en cm o 


CM 


LO *=J" 


i— i i — i 


m 


CO 



LO <J\ O 
CO CO CO 



CT) LO CO 

«d- <=r r-» 

OWN 



o o o 
r- co lo 



*— I O LO r- 

o r-. co o 

LO LO CO LO 

CO <^- -cfr CM 



I T— I CO 



CM «3" 

r*. co 

CT> CM 



cn cn 

CO o 

cn co 



^j- r-« i-i 

CMrHJ 

en en ^t 



lo cm ^a- 

csjincft 

CM I s - LO 



LO CM CM O 



rorscg 
i— t .—i rv. 
I s - cm «-h 

CM CM ^" 



1 


^c 


£ 


z 


u 


< 


c 
z 


c 

■5 

C 




- 


a. 




< 






z 


■r 

■n 


~ 



s = 



CM <X> *£> *3 

o r-~ co ud 

i— I t-H .— I *j- 



•3- "3- "3- CM 



O O O O 

ioi-ito co 



«3" LT> co CNJ 

CM O CO i-H 



o o o 



O CD o o o 



r~ O CTl UD 

r~- «£> 00 cm 

CM CO r-\ CO 



O O O 
IT) v£> r-1 
CO r-1 LT) 



co co o 

l~» <3- "3- 
i— 1 CM CM 



z 



co r*. cr> cm 



cm co co 

'O O CT, 



LO CTv co r-- 



LO I ■ CTl 
^J" LO LO 

lo Ch 



■ ^f CM LO LO LO 



f-i «^f «^- LO CM 

CM LO CO m CO 

CM *— < CM CO 



O CM O LO 



CO LO CO 
CM CTl CO 

r» en co 



COS LO 
O O r-H 
O CM CM 



co o *— ' 
CM r-^ CM 
«* ^- LO 



f— T- C C 

^ > O QJ 0J 

c c cn u s- 

n3 tO t- c i- 



fO O <L> Q >r- 



^ i- O Q -r- 



160 





Ss 




1 5 








1 




o. o 




jj oe 




a 2! 


on 


« 2 


H 


| 


OS 


5 § 


P 


"o ^ 


O 


8 * 


u 


< 


H ^ 


2 


U » 




NN *h 




« £ 


s „ 






1— < CU 




at 






e „ 


HE 

Fisca 




H M 


•a 


fc-E 


3 | 


*N 3 


H J! 


co Q 


Q 


ASE 

posed 






«5 




W £ 




^ s 


A 


u 5 




** *_ 


^^ 


K o 


>> so 


W £ 


Q J. 




I 2 


OS -o 


01 

(J ° 
w 00 


O 5 




H 2 




©s 


Cu 




O f*4 

c 2 


1 N© 


Z WD 


" * 


NO 

endin 


2 


>-) * 




INA 

Cases 


B 

.2 « 


S's 


s 


N=« (/) 




OS & 


5 Si 


u < 


3 « 


u. 




© 




CO 




w 


0- 


o 




< 





<- *r 2 



•-h «a- 

t-H in 


CO 


CT. O 
ID CO 
*t CM 


en 


T3" t-H 
t-H O 
t-H LD 


LO 

lO 


CT. *x 
CO 00 


«h- in 

in r-n 
o oo 


CO 
ro 


r- co 
cm o 

■—I CM 


o 
m 
ro 


CM ID 

CO f 

co co 


cu 

CM 


ct> in 

^" t-H 

r-~ ID 



CM CM CM 



«H- CO 
CM *3" 

t-H CO 



o o 


o 


o o 


O 


o o 


CM •— < 


CM 


ID CT. 


CXi 


^r co 

CM CM 



ID O 
CO *3- 


CO 
ro 


m «3- 
«a- co 


CM 


o in 

CO CO 


co 


o >* 

•si- <d" 


co n 

CM O 


CO 


LD CT. 
CO *3r 

co tn 


CO 

CO 


CM o 
CO CM 

o tn 


C\J 

in 
m 


CTi O 
ro CT> 
CTi CM 



IT) O 


in 


■a- en 


ro 


CM !-• 


CTI ID 


LT' 


co «a- 


CO 


in t—i 


«3- 


IT) 


r^ cm 


O 


in 



co in 


O 


V£) CO 


>JD 


CO CT. 


CT, 


ID >* 


cm in 


LT) 


CO «tf- 


ro 


CM CM 


M 


CM CO 



CD CM 


CM 


CO 1^ 


o 


in corv Nm 


CM 


in CO 


ro 


«3- in 


o 


■-H CM •-< CO CM 


r^ 



r-1 CM CO 

t-H P- CO 

CM <-H CO 

«cf CO r^ 



o in •— < 



in in 

CT. CT. 

•-i «* 



CM ID CO 
CO CO t-n 
CT. CO CO 



CM ^t ID 



r-. t-t oo 



id in 


*-H 


CM CM 


CO CO 


r*> 


CT> «* 


CO OJ 


CO 


—1 ^3" 



MHHrtM 00 



"JO^COnf CM 

in in co ^- co r^ 

CO ID o. o oo CO 

t-H CO CM CM CO CO 



o o 


O 


o o 


o 


o o o o o 


o 


f—i t-H 
CM CM 


^-1 
CM 


oo r-~ 

t-H CM 


■a- 

CM 


cm ^t ** in ni- 

CM t-H t-H t-H t-H 


m 



in coin r* cn u-> 



O CO 
ro ro 


\-t 


UO CO 

ro ro 


PO 


<d- ^ CO •— 1 UO 
ro c\j ro ^j- c\j 


ro 


O C\J 

cr> o 


CVI 

en 


ro r--. 
•^j- ro 
OJ O 


o 

00 
CXI 


r-. i— 1 r-4 C\J KO 

oinnino 
id o>c\j corn 





i—t ro ro c\j ^r ld 



r^ ^r 


i— i 


ro CO 


i— i 


OJ l£> CO r^. LO 


CO 


O CO 


Of. 


OJ 


( ■•- 1 


uo ro co un 


ro 


t— t ro 


^3- 






t-H 


m 



ro o 


ro 


CT) OJ 


<— f 


r-. t-H t— i cj «jo 


r^ «^j- 


c— 1 




ro 


ro CO <Ti •— ' 


i— i. 


CSJ 









CO O r- ro o 
ro CO *£> UO ro 
r-t OJ OJ «— t OJ 



O o uo o O 



r*. ro «-j- uo en oj 



CO ro 
ro <^- 
r-H ro 


i.r> 


CO r^ 
O ^i- 


o 


UO «-H CO <JD < ^" 
UO ro o> O CO 

<-iHCVJH 


o 


*^ uo 

UD r-H 

uo en 


cn 


ro uo 
^jO CO 
ro uo 


a. 
cn 


uo O ro CTi uo 

t— * *$■ uo ro ro 


LO 
CO 



F 




10 


.1) 


c- 


i J 


■1-' 


CT 


en 


rr. 


x: 


V 


i_> O 



i— CTI 


■ 'r- 


u 




r— C 


i. 




i/i 


cu -^ 


* ' 


1- 


cu >i 


3 ^ 






^ s- 


t^ u 




t/1 


o s- 


fU o 


a 




4-> 3 


c_j q: 




a 


OO UO 



S- 




L. 


.,_ 


O i— 


L. 


c 


+J 


s- 


CT. O 


m 


AH 




-M 


+-. "O 


XJ 


? 




ts> 


C C 


la 


n 


Q 




O fO 


o 


a. 




Q 


s: cc 



O S- -C c o 

I/, o u fO •»- 

C O ■■- 4-1 C 

ctzee mD 



161 



O CO OO O CO 



O O *J- •— ' CM 



— i 00 o> in ro 



Cfl 




« 2 


H 




s 


K 




£ § 


- 




o -1 


c 






u 




< 


H 


rs 


s 


U 


I 




*=-* 






cc 


o 


B 






I" 




U 




a 


> 








C .. 




u 




H 


ox 


■a 


Z 


B 


— S 

o <L 


►■■ 


3 


t- ja 


X. 


2 


Q 


* 


T3 

3^ 




t/3 

< 


or 

c 




u 


5 




u 


^ 


in 


- 


w 




** 


V. 


'r' VI 


— 





■ ro 


> 


■■r. 

u 
u 

< 


Q i 

s - 


as 


■a 


H 
w 00 


*> 


c 


M — 


c 


CB 


C J. 


H 


r~( 


•5 ^ 


o 


oc 


a. 


£ 


O 




i 


■c 


z 


at 


< * 


o 
z 

- 


C 

■3 

c 
u 
Du 


Q 
-c 


< 
z 


U 

■■r. 

a 
r 


E 
.5 t. 

■n " 



— w 

£ o 

u < 

O 
r. 

W 



V. — ° 



M "" Ln 



V « 



H Z — 



UO «JD *t *T 

lH N rH (X> 



cm <x> n en 
oo oo r-» vjd 
O lt> ko en 



«— • OO *3" CNJ VO 



--t oo oo 



<JD <d- CM CO 

oo «s- oo oo 

.— < <sO uo 



o o o o 



ro CO uo CO t-i 



HNrHCO 

cm oo •— < cn 



LO •— * OO O0 



con oo mtj 



«d- OO CXI CM i— t 



O O O O 



LT> CM "3" N- 



ooinoo in 

r-. CO «^- o en n 

■HCOCT*N H <£> 

OO M(\JH N 



ud cm co ud cn 

CM kO "3" CM i— 1 



OOJ«t CVJ C\J 
LT) CO VO 00 0~> 
"X> H(\jh 



oo cn *£> .— i 



CO Cn CO LO 

CO «=J" CO OO 

hcnjco co 

ro oo in t— i 



o o o 


o 


o 

C\J 


14.0 
17.0 
14.0 


•d 1 


O 


o o o o o 


o 


O 


o o 


crv O ■-" 

•-H C\J C\J 


LDinHCSJH 

nnnropo 


CM 


CM CM 


O LO "3- 


o 
m 


P0 


K£> \£> OJ 

oo r*- i-H 

csjoooo 




no 


cn oo oo o in 


GO 


CM 


O OO 


m u: o 


oo ix) cn CM CTi 
co ix> <* LO cn 


O 
LT) 


oo r- 

cn cn 


O O CM 

CTi CO LT) 
CNJ l£> CO 


CO 


P0 


<d" IT) O 
CT> CO U~> 

ro r^- cm 




»X) 


OlL^COOIN 

o~> cn cn oo cn 


O 


LO 

in 


cn *-< 



o-> cn vo ro 



VD CM *J- P^ 


cr, 


o csi i-i ro 


UD 


CM O O CO CO 


CO 


00 00 CM 


i-i ro CNJ 


r- 


O i-t 


•-H 


CO r-t 00 CTI c^l 


00 


00 .-I 



r-H t-H OO 



CO on oo 
cn oo «— 1 
oo cn <& 



01 ON CO 



(O O- UO CO 

COO"vt oo 

O0 O kO o 

t-H OO 



oo cn *-h 

VO vD oo 

^3- r-H *£l 



r- oo 
-^ oo 



o o o 

t— I oo oo 
-^ O0 UD 



•Htn *£> 



O O CO 

o ^t cn 

oo oo oo 

o- en uo 



«3- oo 

cn f-t 
cn 04 



u 



cu c: 

•o o 

C l/l i — *— 

<T3 "O CO (U -»-> 

x -f- «i- -a <s> 

CO > > (D ••- 

i — <n fa i- cz» 

<=c c q — 



CO CO -^ -^ 
.— JZ »— X3 
( — (/) ■*- (T3 
<<3>- 



-i— l^ 



U -r- U T3 U 

CO "O +->+-> C 

> ra -r- ro (O 

<t ^ 51 3 >- 



»— fO T- 

CU -O s~ 

) ? i -t^ 



3 ro 03 

couu 



-.- LO 



162 



.2 •» 



cv r» f-i oo PO --I 



w en in m r-- in 



m 




TO 


«~4 


co co co rj- CM 


CM 


H 




s 








c£ 




u 


O 
rJi 






© 








oo -3- co en i-< 


LO 




"o 
t 


3 


O CO r- CM O 
in co ■-" 


O 


u 




< 














o 


CO CTi -H h. U) 


m 


H 






■ 


CAN r^rHCJ 


I.U 


IS 




e> 


*3- .— t **■ n r-. 


Ln 


U 


88 
l 






CM rH CM 


r^» 


hH 


— ■ 1 










OS 
H 

m 


•in 
4?. 

5=1 

4-i 


1 


< 


o o o o O 

NHHCOH 


o 


s 


£ 




CM CM C\J »— 1 CM 


CM 


e 


> 


e 

s 








w 




< 


n n in «a* in 


CO 


en in r-*. t— ' in 


CO 


E 




*? CO CO ^3- ^J- 


"J 


H 


ws 




I 






z 


s 


3 

o 
H 


V 


fl- lomcAOi 


CO 


t: 


}~. 


en co oo n en 


0^ 


M 


9 


':a 


cm co in •—< oo 


CM 


Oft 


P 




n 


CO ^H CO 


<n 


w 


ri, 










< 










u 


5 










w 


<« 




W-! 


tOOKfifl 


ro 


hJ 






1*1 
A 


cm •* en *— i 


CO 
-— 1 


u 


"1 








HH 


tea 




^ 








s 










a 


«5 

9 


Q 


:£» 


OrONNO 

in *}■ vo cm 


CM 

in 


> 


< 


I 




,-H 


es 


"3 


S3 


SO 






o 


e 

58 


0-J 




co co "d- r~ en 


^-, 


H 


«N! 


•€ 

B 


iM 


in cm 


O 


© 


98 


ft* 

a, 








fc— d 


® 




q 






> 


^ 


o 


^ 






i^ 


-- 


8 


'T' 


en o in o oo 


CM 


a 


*<© 


&3 




in cm •— i in co 


CTi 


z 


M 


< 


^s 




rt 


© 


S 




2 


en co cm en en 


CM 


.)-! 




co o •*■ in in 




h-1 


& 




(OH CM 


CO 


< 


J) 
« 

u 


B 




o o o o o 


o 






§ 

«_=, 


te» 




s: 


in in i— i t— i in 
co in ^r in oo 


'Xi 


w 










tt 




a 


t> 


in cm •— i cm o 


o 


u 


< 


1 


< 


in co in r^ f— i 
co en rt <n in 


CTi 


fe 








f— t i— i t— i *—i 


r-i 


© 




5 


E 










•6 


in *r cm r^ cm 


O 


C/3 




o 


G 


rOHNOt 


c- 




H 


sy 


in cm in »-h 


^r 






0. 




* 


o 












< 













oo i— i r-- c\j r~* m <yt 



r^. KO KO CSJ \£> 00 CSJ 

cm 00 <x> CO <f r-* csj 

rt <H CM CO U) f^- <* 



o o o o o o o 



cr>r^.CTs ,! ^-csjc i ouf) i^- 



O ^£> «- 1 CTv ^O I s * O 

in o^ naiN c\jO 
in h n rn n (n id 



ooooooo o 
csjoocOt£)f Y ">r^Ln csi 

t-t CSJ «3" CSJ CSJ 



f— I M CSI CO CO CCHO "CJ- 

csjcsjcor^LOCOLO *d- 

r^ O ^ t^ r^ r-i m r^ 

i— it— i <— i ro csj <^> csj co 









■r- 


h- 


o 






o 


r 




CO 


c 




u 


m 


■M 




o <— 




o 


> 


u 




CO ^~ 




'+- 






' ' 


i- <U 




S- 


>! 


S- 




CD J 




0) 


to 


4-> 


■- 


•o o 




c 


c 


t/1 


+J 


C Q 






It) 




i/i 


OJ O 


n 


3 


u 


o 




z: 2: 


a. 


o; 


r - 




o 



(U m n3 >, u u <o ■!— 
r i- s- it? in n) 3 Q 



163 



RANKINGS FOR THE 34 JUDICIAL DISTRICTS BASED UPON 
PERCENT TOTAL CASELOAD DISPOSED* 

July 1, 1981 — June 30, 1982 





Judicial 




Superior Court 




1 states 


Special 
Proceedings 


District Court 




Civil 


Criminal 




Civil 


Criminal 


Judicial 






Non-Motor 


Division 


District 




Felonies Misdemeanors 








Vehicle 


: 


1 


22 


6 


9 


2:; 


31 


17 


! 




: 


20 


22 


12 


2(1 


12 


22 


1 




3 


1 ' 


24 


19 


12 


8 


2M 


15 




4 


21 


4 


1 


23 


24 


12 


8 




S 


iq 


7 


1/ 


2b 


3 


2b 


5 




6 


23 


i;: 


2b 


lb 


33 


5 


7 




7 


is 


9 


10 


1/ 


19 


lb 


22 




8 


If-: 


lb 


12 


') 


15 


!') 


12 


:: 


9 


14 


15 


21 


19 


16 


28 


9 




10 


17 


2/ 


7 


31 


23 


2/ 


28 




11 


1 


1/ 


11 


21 


12 


2b 


24 




12 


24 


1 i 


2 


1 


6 


■;o 


23 




13 


24 


n 


20 


16 


28 


7 


20 




14 


1(1 


10 


I] 


24 


2 


18 


29 




15A 


25 


2(1 


2/ 


1 


8 


1 


lb 




I SB 


8 


3 


3 


2/ 


22 


24 


28 




16 


lb 


21 


25 


3 


14 


18 


1 >, 


m 


17A 


/ 


8 


18 


11 


34 


2 


14 




17B 


3 


<;■ 


il 


i ; 


13 


9 


10 




18 


i4 


2b 


24 


2b 


7 


8 


32 




19 A 


26 


2 


14 


7 


11 


21 


28 




19B 


32 


12 




4 


29 


11 


19 




20 


>,0 


11 


lb 


34 


27 


u 


11 




21 


6 


1 


5 


18 


1 


b 


10 




22 


5 


2 3 


4 


8 


9 


4 


1/ 




2 3 


4 


30 


:((l 


8 


18 


3 


6 


:. 


24 


9 


34 


14 


(8 


28 


il 


34 




25 


11 


14 


8 


(0 


10 


1 < 


18 




26 


28 


2'> 


L6 


14 


20 


!4 


33 




2 7/. 


31 


1') 


13 


Id 


1/ 


14 


27 




2 7E 


,' 


8, 


6 


b 


4 


Ki 


2 




28 


12 


il 


22 


22 


21 


12 


4 




29 


S3 


29 


/:■'. 


28 


30 


2! 


21 




30 


27 


■/a 


2b 


31 


2b 


2!) 


31 



Total Caseload = Cases pending on July 1, 1981 + new cases filed during the 1981-82 year. A rank of 1 

ites the highest percentage of total caseload disposed; a rank ot 34 indicates the lowest percentage 
iseload disposed. 



164 



RANKINGS FOR THE 100 COUNTIES BASED UPON 
PERCENT TOTAL CASELOAD DISPOSED* 

July 1,1981 —June 30, 1982 









Superior Court 




Estates 


Special 
Proceedings 


District Court 




Civil 


Crim 


inal 


Civil 


Criminal 


Judicial 






Non-Motor 


District 


County 




Felonies 


Misdemeanors 








Vehicle 


1 


Camden 


96 


27 


88 


4 


7/ 


49 


2 




Chowan 


38 


4] 


<;• 


57 


't4 


;</ 


7 




Currituck 


82 


74 


i/ 


27 


4 7 


97 


'./ 




Dare 


80 


14 


(,o 


100 


8,8 


84 


72 




Gates 


100 


55 


i'. 


82 


02 


00 


1 




Pasquotank 


8 


39 


20 


20 


53 


53 


11 




Perquimans 


73 


2 


9 


;n 


t,'i 


02 


4 


.' 


Beaufort 


50 


45 


84 


71, 


87 


','1 


5 




Hyde 


9 


20 


98 


o 


i,/ 


4 1 


6 




Martin 


84 


5] 


95 


4 4 


0') 


// 


If, 




Tyrrell 


57 


83 


73 


74 


32 


00 


49 




Washington 


66 


78 


41 


23 


7f, 


84 


■: 


1 


Carteret 


33 


'19 


35 


if, 


44 


82 


86 




Craven 


7] 


66 


52 


38 


28 


1 


14 




Pamlico 


L2 


87 


5 


31 


84 


f, t , 


1 




Pitt 


00 


52 


65 


41 


8 


76 


22 


4 


Dupl in 


70 


13 


1 


70 


84 


01 


90 




Jones 


39 


1 


34 


55 


OK 


8,5 


74 




Onslow 


75 


28 


21 


69 


If, 


86 


ID 




Sampson 


22 


30 


6 


47 


27 


15 


34 


6 


New Hanover 


58 


23 


48 


80 


3 


02 


211 




Pender 


28 


8,8 


59 


63 


79 


8,3 


73 


6 


Bertie 


46 


70 


70 


10 


4 4 


60 


10 




Halifax 


59 


38 


66 


n 


01 


2 


20 




Hertford 


61 


67 


75 


9 


50 


40 


38 




Northampton 


77 


31 


19 


28 


70 


7 


71 . 


7 


Edgecombe 


11 


26 


16 


12 


08. 


47 


0(1 




Nash 


78 


20 


36 


00 


24 


00 


60 




Wi 1 son 


44 


43 


45 


75 


71 


4 


76 


8 


Greene 


56 


73 


93 


It, 


■:k 


1 


8 




Lenoir 


41 


21 


39 


3 


33 


82 


28 




Wayne 


53 


5 3 


31 


66 


30 


74 


OH 


9 


Frankl in 


5] 


7 


4 


8,0 


45 


64 


4 ' 




Granvi 1 le 


(.(.) 


37 


6 ! 


18: 


1 


44 


12 




Person 


13 


57 


8 3 


40 


55 


44 


01 




Vance 


62 


64 


81 


08 


04 


7 


4 




Warren 


19 


5 


]() 


13 


Of, 


11 


35 


10 


Wake 


48 


68 


33 


40 


1,1 


f,4 


>■■>. 


11 


Harnett 


15 


19 


30 


61 


40 


r< 


78 




Johnston 


7 


o 


28 


33 





70 


82 




Lee 


10 


on 


62 


81 


80 


9 3 


13 


12 


Cumberland 


00 


12 


7 


11 


17 


80 


68, 




Hoke 


2 


n 


38 


8 


37 


16 


40 


13 


Bladen 


63 


93 


76 





11 


6 


04 




Brunswick 


74 


Of, 


53 


72 


Of, 


11 


8 1 




Columbus 


88 


60 


14 


4 6 


90 


26 


1 1 


11 


Durham 


34 


32 


78 


02 





04 


85 


15A 


Alamance 


68 


66 


68 


14 


10 


10 


Oh 


151! 


Chatham 


16 


71 


12 


68 


73 


14 


24 




Orange 


32 


.8 


1 1 


71 


7 


78 


81! 


16 


Robeson 


49 


11 


2 g 


7 


18 


34 


46 




Scotland 


27 


7 7 


01 


00 


72 


08 


48 



165 



RANKINGS FOR THE 100 COUNTIES BASED UPON 
PERCENT TOTAL CASELOAD DISPOSED* 

July 1, 1981 - June 30, 1982 









Superior Court 




Estates 


Special 
Proceedings 


Dis 


Irict Court 




Civil 


Criminal 


Civil 


Criminal 


Judicial 






Non-Motor 


District 


County 




Felonies 


Misdemeanors 








Vehicle 


■."■'- 


Caswell 


72 


09 


79 


32 


Hb 


79 


9 




Rockingham 


.' i 


r> 


If, 


43 


92 


5 


54 




Stokes 


17 


i,o 


77 


9t, 


19 


u, 


26 




Surry 


18 


89 


O,' 


37 


35 


2] 


44 


18 


Gui 1 ford 


'14 


i, > 


61 


67 


20 


23 


95 


19A 


Cabarrus 


89 


17 


54 


34 


36 


48 


55 




Rowan 


4,' 


24 


fs 


36 


;v 


72 


87 


'.-: v 


Montgomery 


/h 


35 


:;n 


1 


LOO 


'-if, 


66 




Randolph 


92 


If, 


4') 


10 


34 


12 


57 


20 


Anson 


67 


4 


13 


HI, 


97 


73 


29 




'•'no re 


85 


47 


,'f, 


87 


23 


75 


30 




Richmond 


9 7 


48 


40 


93 


81 


00 


69 




Stanly 


93 


14 


22 


94 


60 


on 


70 




Union 


52 


22 


67 


78 


83 


HI 


17 


:i 


Forsyth 


-4 


1!) 


,'4 


48 


,' 


20 


89 


22 


Alexander 


3 


91 


14 


5 


4 


3 


67 




Davidson 


;'i 


') 


3 


;•', 


19 


13 


52 




Da v i e 


8 S 


L6 


(-4 


20 


41 


10 


48 




I redel 1 


;"'o 


79 


,'•; 


22 


I? 


31 


62 


23 


Al leghany 


] 


12 


50 


30 


7 


1/ 


19 




Ashe" 


5 


::i, 


91 


.'1 


If., 


57 


$6 




Wilkes 


10 


76 


72 


52 


65 


4 


31 




Yadkin 


14 


81 


71 


;■(, 


,'0 


18 


18 


. ; 


Avery 


'-4 


19 


LOO 


i,', 


43 


87 


100 




Madison 


i 1 . 


29 


85 


81 


78 


o;' 


70 




Mitchell 


t,', 


85 


2 


98 


96 


71 


99 




Watauga 


(A 


94 


90 


1,4 


74 


68 


94 




Yancey 


4 


82 


87 


/') 


63 


18 


91 


25 


Burke 


4 I 


62 


55 


HH 


10 


34 


33 




Caldwell 


4'] 


72 


18 


1,0 


25 


84 


88 




Catawba 


1] 


18 


27 


;•:', 


40 


19 


27 


26 


Mecklenburg 


79 


',', 


47 


4,' 


52 


OS 


96 


2i ;■ 


Gaston 


87 


04 


42 


40 


48 


42 


77 


27B 


Cleveland 


,'f, 


50 


37 


!'! 


9 


i.' 


14 




Lincoln 


r. 


3 


8 


10 


21 


15 


23 


28 


Buncombe 


■;f, 


79 


58 


',4 


51 


40 


21 


r-i 


Henderson 


09 


69 


74 


51 


31 


HO 


65 




'■'' '.-iii- 1 I 


98 


40 


4 I 


73 


82 


17 


64 




Polk 


90 


58 


89 


53 


13 


9 


41 




Rutherford 


'■',) 


84 


56 


19 


64 


28 


63 




Transyl vania 


25 


98 


99 


99 


99 


i,i 


61 




Cherokee 


9] 


'),' 


96 


97 


70 


100 


92 




Clay 


55 


97 


'17 


1/ 


14 


0(1 


32 




Graham 


37 


100 


69 


■>:■ 


66 


H 


75 




Haywood 


45 


61 


57 


24 


42 


61 


93 




la< \ son 


95 


!', 


8f, 


01, 


93 


88, 


07 




" 


4/ 


80 


;v 


95 


80 


(,', 


08 




Swa i n 


86 


46 


51 


01 


68 


98 


84 



rotal Caseload = Cases pending on July 1, 1981 + new cases filed during the 1981-82. A rank of 1 indicates 
rcentage r <f total caseload disposed; a rank of 100 indicates the lowest percentage of total 
ed. 



166 



STATE LIBRARY OF NORTH CAROLINA 



3 3091 00748 2532 







Date 


Due 




OCT. 1 9 1 


983 






FEB. 6 1!l 


84 






APR. 2 6 I 


I 
























































































































BRODART INC 


Cat Nc 


23 233 


Printed in S A